GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs GTX 285M

Place in performance ranking	948	162
Place by popularity	not in top-100	11
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	69.37
Architecture	G9x (2007−2010)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	N10E-GTX1	GA106
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	2 March 2009 (15 years ago)	4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	128	2560
CUDA cores	128	no data
Core clock speed	576 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	1777 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	130 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.40	142.2
Floating-point performance	0.384 gflops	9.098 gflops
Gigaflops	576	no data

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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	no data	242 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 8-pin
SLI options	2-way	-
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	no data

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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 1020 MHz	14 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	61 GB/s	224.0 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	Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management

8.0

no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.6
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	8.6

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GTX 285M 1.65

RTX 3050 8 GB 32.69
+1881%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

GTX 285M 636

RTX 3050 8 GB 12612
+1883%

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:

900p	21 −1805%	400−450 +1805%
Full HD	30 −1733%	550−600 +1733%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−1775%

75−80
+1775%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −1733%	110−120 +1733%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1800%	95−100 +1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1775%	75−80 +1775%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1775%	75−80 +1775%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1800%	95−100 +1800%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1733%	110−120 +1733%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −1775%	300−310 +1775%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −1789%	170−180 +1789%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −1812%	650−700 +1812%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −1733%	110−120 +1733%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1800%	95−100 +1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1775%	75−80 +1775%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1775%	75−80 +1775%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1800%	95−100 +1800%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1733%	110−120 +1733%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −1775%	300−310 +1775%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −1789%	170−180 +1789%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −1817%	230−240 +1817%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −1812%	650−700 +1812%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −1733%	110−120 +1733%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1800%	95−100 +1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1775%	75−80 +1775%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1800%	95−100 +1800%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1733%	110−120 +1733%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −1775%	300−310 +1775%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −1789%	170−180 +1789%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −1817%	230−240 +1817%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −1812%	650−700 +1812%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1733%

55−60
+1733%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1757%	130−140 +1757%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −1800%	95−100 +1800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −1789%	170−180 +1789%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−1775%

75−80
+1775%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−1700%

18−20
+1700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1733%

55−60
+1733%

This is how GTX 285M and RTX 3050 8 GB compete in popular games:

RTX 3050 8 GB is 1805% faster in 900p
RTX 3050 8 GB is 1733% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.65	32.69
Recency	2 March 2009	4 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	130 Watt

GTX 285M has 73.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 3050 8 GB, on the other hand, has a 1881.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 587.5% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 285M is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.