Radeon R9 270X vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile with Radeon R9 270X, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms R9 270X by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 236 | 406 |
| Place by popularity | 56 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.87 |
| Power efficiency | 28.06 | 4.83 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | Curacao |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (3 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
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 | 2048 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 180 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 84.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 |
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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2 x 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 179.2 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| LiquidVR | - | + |
| TressFX | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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
+113%
| 30−35
−113%
|
| 1440p | 47
+95.8%
| 24−27
−95.8%
|
| 4K | 30
+114%
| 14−16
−114%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 6.63 |
| 1440p | no data | 8.29 |
| 4K | no data | 14.21 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 71
+137%
|
30−33
−137%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 42
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 54
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+78.8%
|
50−55
−78.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 38
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+117%
|
24−27
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+70%
|
40−45
−70%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+66.7%
|
65−70
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+80.4%
|
50−55
−80.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80
+158%
|
30−35
−158%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+107%
|
40−45
−107%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+53.3%
|
100−110
−53.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 32
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+71.2%
|
50−55
−71.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+48.2%
|
170−180
−48.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+70.8%
|
24−27
−70.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+47.5%
|
80−85
−47.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+60%
|
40−45
−60%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+66.7%
|
65−70
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+80.4%
|
50−55
−80.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+110%
|
30−35
−110%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+91.1%
|
45−50
−91.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+107%
|
40−45
−107%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+161%
|
30−35
−161%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+53.3%
|
100−110
−53.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+59.6%
|
50−55
−59.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+40%
|
80−85
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+52.5%
|
40−45
−52.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+80.4%
|
50−55
−80.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55
+77.4%
|
30−35
−77.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+107%
|
40−45
−107%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+48.4%
|
30−35
−48.4%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+53.3%
|
100−110
−53.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+66.7%
|
65−70
−66.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+81.1%
|
90−95
−81.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+116%
|
80−85
−116%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+56.3%
|
120−130
−56.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+106%
|
30−35
−106%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+88.5%
|
24−27
−88.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+103%
|
27−30
−103%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+91.3%
|
21−24
−91.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+93.3%
|
14−16
−93.3%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+109%
|
60−65
−109%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+44.2%
|
40−45
−44.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+100%
|
20−22
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+118%
|
10−12
−118%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+127%
|
10−12
−127%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and R9 270X compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 113% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 96% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 114% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 175% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is ahead in 66 tests (99%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.56 | 12.68 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 8 October 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 180 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 93.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 270X in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is a notebook card while Radeon R9 270X 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.
