GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs Quadro P2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 with GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 6 GB outperforms P2000 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 290 | 197 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 21 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.77 | 75.57 |
| Power efficiency | 17.46 | 27.48 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (7 years ago) | 2 February 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 3050 6 GB has 673% better value for money than Quadro P2000.
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 | 1024 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | 1042 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1470 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 94.72 | 105.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.031 TFLOPS | 6.774 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 72 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 72 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 18 |
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 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 201 mm | 242 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 160 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | 168.0 GB/s |
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 | 4x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 | + | 1.3 |
| 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 | 60
−41.7%
| 85−90
+41.7%
|
| 1440p | 21
−42.9%
| 30−35
+42.9%
|
| 4K | 15
−40%
| 21−24
+40%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40−45
−42.9%
|
60−65
+42.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
−45.2%
|
45−50
+45.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−45.2%
|
90−95
+45.2%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
−42.9%
|
60−65
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
−37.3%
|
70−75
+37.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
−44.1%
|
170−180
+44.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
−35.1%
|
50−55
+35.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 90−95
−41.3%
|
130−140
+41.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
−46.2%
|
95−100
+46.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
−37.3%
|
70−75
+37.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 77
−42.9%
|
110−120
+42.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 85−90
−36.4%
|
120−130
+36.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40−45
−42.9%
|
60−65
+42.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
−45.2%
|
45−50
+45.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−45.2%
|
90−95
+45.2%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
−37.3%
|
70−75
+37.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
−44.1%
|
170−180
+44.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
−35.1%
|
50−55
+35.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 90−95
−41.3%
|
130−140
+41.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
−46.2%
|
95−100
+46.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
−37.3%
|
70−75
+37.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 60−65
−45.2%
|
90−95
+45.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−39.5%
|
60−65
+39.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 85−90
−36.4%
|
120−130
+36.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40−45
−42.9%
|
60−65
+42.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
−45.2%
|
45−50
+45.2%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
−44.1%
|
170−180
+44.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
−35.1%
|
50−55
+35.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 90−95
−41.3%
|
130−140
+41.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 60−65
−45.2%
|
90−95
+45.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 85−90
−36.4%
|
120−130
+36.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
−37.3%
|
70−75
+37.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−38.9%
|
50−55
+38.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
−37.9%
|
40−45
+37.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
−42.1%
|
27−30
+42.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
−44.2%
|
150−160
+44.2%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−42.9%
|
50−55
+42.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 110−120
−42.9%
|
160−170
+42.9%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−45.2%
|
45−50
+45.2%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 95−100
−44.3%
|
140−150
+44.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
−35%
|
27−30
+35%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
This is how Quadro P2000 and RTX 3050 6 GB compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6 GB is 42% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 6 GB is 43% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 6 GB is 40% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.83 | 27.66 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 2 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 70 Watt |
RTX 3050 6 GB has a 46.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 20% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 7.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 6 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
