GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs 610M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 610M with GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 6 GB outperforms 610M by a whopping 3612% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1166 | 209 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 21 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 76.27 |
| Power efficiency | 4.35 | 27.37 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 December 2011 (13 years ago) | 2 February 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 738 MHz | 1042 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 1470 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.904 | 105.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1417 TFLOPS | 6.774 TFLOPS |
| Video decoders | H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 72 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 72 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 18 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 14.4 GB/s | 168.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−3471%
|
250−260
+3471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−3471%
|
250−260
+3471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3500%
|
180−190
+3500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3525%
|
290−300
+3525%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3521%
|
1050−1100
+3521%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−3471%
|
250−260
+3471%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−3400%
|
700−750
+3400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−3362%
|
450−500
+3362%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3500%
|
180−190
+3500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3525%
|
290−300
+3525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−3500%
|
180−190
+3500%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3521%
|
1050−1100
+3521%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−3471%
|
250−260
+3471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−3362%
|
450−500
+3362%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3500%
|
180−190
+3500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3525%
|
290−300
+3525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−3500%
|
180−190
+3500%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3521%
|
1050−1100
+3521%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−3400%
|
140−150
+3400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−3567%
|
550−600
+3567%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−3400%
|
140−150
+3400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.74 | 27.47 |
| Recency | 1 December 2011 | 2 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 70 Watt |
GeForce 610M has 483.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 3050 6 GB, on the other hand, has a 3612.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 610M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 610M is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
