GeForce Go 7950 GTX vs RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and GeForce Go 7950 GTX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms Go 7950 GTX by a whopping 3503% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 233 | 1188 |
| Place by popularity | 56 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.07 | 1.04 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | G71 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (3 years ago) | 12 October 2006 (18 years ago) |
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 | 2048 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 13.80 |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-III |
| 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 44.8 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | no data | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 | 64
+6300%
| 1−2
−6300%
|
| 1440p | 47
+4600%
| 1−2
−4600%
|
| 4K | 30 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 71
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 42
+500%
|
7−8
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+3200%
|
2−3
−3200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 54
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+4550%
|
2−3
−4550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 38
+443%
|
7−8
−443%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+3733%
|
3−4
−3733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2200%
|
4−5
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80
+3900%
|
2−3
−3900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+1013%
|
8−9
−1013%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+455%
|
27−30
−455%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 32
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+4350%
|
2−3
−4350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+1226%
|
18−20
−1226%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+883%
|
12−14
−883%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+6300%
|
1−2
−6300%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+3733%
|
3−4
−3733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2200%
|
4−5
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+4200%
|
2−3
−4200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+1013%
|
8−9
−1013%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+1925%
|
4−5
−1925%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+455%
|
27−30
−455%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+4050%
|
2−3
−4050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+833%
|
12−14
−833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+6000%
|
1−2
−6000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2200%
|
4−5
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+1013%
|
8−9
−1013%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+455%
|
27−30
−455%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+3733%
|
3−4
−3733%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+8050%
|
2−3
−8050%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+4275%
|
4−5
−4275%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+3900%
|
5−6
−3900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+6500%
|
1−2
−6500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 130−140
+3250%
|
4−5
−3250%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 62
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Go 7950 GTX compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 6300% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 4600% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 8050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 3050 4GB Mobile surpassed Go 7950 GTX in all 36 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.50 | 0.68 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 12 October 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 45 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 3502.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.
Go 7950 GTX, on the other hand, has 33.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 7950 GTX in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
