GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB vs GT 1030
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 1030 and GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 4 GB outperforms GT 1030 by a whopping 177% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 576 | 309 |
| Place by popularity | 36 | 25 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.31 | 37.01 |
| Power efficiency | 14.56 | 13.42 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 27 January 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 3050 4 GB has 1502% better value for money than GT 1030.
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 | 384 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1228 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | 1740 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 35.23 | 111.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.127 TFLOPS | 7.127 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 145 mm | 242 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 192.0 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | + |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 8.6 |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 24
−171%
| 65−70
+171%
|
| 1440p | 23
−161%
| 60−65
+161%
|
| 4K | 8
−163%
| 21−24
+163%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.29 | 3.06 |
| 1440p | 3.43 | 3.32 |
| 4K | 9.88 | 9.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18
−150%
|
45−50
+150%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−173%
|
60−65
+173%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18
−150%
|
45−50
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
−162%
|
55−60
+162%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27
−159%
|
70−75
+159%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
−169%
|
250−260
+169%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 152
−163%
|
400−450
+163%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
−169%
|
70−75
+169%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 31
−174%
|
85−90
+174%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 37
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 93
−169%
|
250−260
+169%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24
−171%
|
65−70
+171%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−150%
|
45−50
+150%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20
−175%
|
55−60
+175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 84
−174%
|
230−240
+174%
|
| Hitman 3 | 15
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 123
−144%
|
300−310
+144%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
−175%
|
55−60
+175%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 15
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−175%
|
55−60
+175%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 84
−174%
|
230−240
+174%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
−169%
|
35−40
+169%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 19
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 19
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−175%
|
55−60
+175%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 11
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 48
−171%
|
130−140
+171%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−165%
|
45−50
+165%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
This is how GT 1030 and RTX 3050 4 GB compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4 GB is 171% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4 GB is 161% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4 GB is 163% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.37 | 17.62 |
| Recency | 17 May 2017 | 27 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 90 Watt |
GT 1030 has 200% lower power consumption.
RTX 3050 4 GB, on the other hand, has a 176.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 1030 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
