GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Quadro FX 350M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 350M with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.

FX 350M
2006
256 MB GDDR3, 15 Watt
0.11

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms FX 350M by a whopping 22418% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1451223
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.5328.92
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameG72GN20-P0-R 6 GB
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date13 March 2006 (18 years ago)6 January 2023 (2 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 cores72560
Core clock speed450 MHz1237 MHz
Boost clock speed450 MHz1492 MHz
Number of transistors112 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology90 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate1.800no data
ROPs2no data
TMUs4no 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16no 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed450 MHz12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12_2
Shader Model3.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/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-0−169
1440p-0−137

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−683%
45−50
+683%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3950%
81
+3950%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−683%
45−50
+683%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1500%
32
+1500%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−3400%
105
+3400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−567%
40
+567%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1050%
23
+1050%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1517%
97
+1517%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2767%
86
+2767%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−3060%
150−160
+3060%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−1950%
80−85
+1950%
World of Tanks 10−11
−2480%
250−260
+2480%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−683%
45−50
+683%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−850%
19
+850%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1183%
75−80
+1183%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2433%
76
+2433%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−3060%
150−160
+3060%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−17400%
170−180
+17400%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−600%
21−24
+600%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−1750%
70−75
+1750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−1133%
37
+1133%
Valorant 4−5
−1600%
65−70
+1600%
Dota 2 14−16
−193%
40−45
+193%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−193%
40−45
+193%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 0−1 75−80
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−193%
40−45
+193%
Battlefield 5 0−1 24−27
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Dota 2 14−16
−193%
40−45
+193%
Valorant 0−1 30−35
Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Dota 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 91
+0%
91
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
World of Tanks 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 57
+0%
57
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 17400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is ahead in 29 tests (48%)
  • there's a draw in 32 tests (52%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.11 24.77
Recency 13 March 2006 6 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 60 Watt

FX 350M has 300% lower power consumption.

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 22418.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 350M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 350M
Quadro FX 350M
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile
GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Quadro FX 350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1
711 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 350M or GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.