GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics with GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 8 GB outperforms HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics by a whopping 1091% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 819 | 179 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 14 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 63.91 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 17.22 |
| Architecture | no data | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | no data | GA106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 August 2013 (11 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
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 | 640 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 720 / 825 MHz | 1552 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1777 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 142.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 9.098 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1088%
|
95−100
+1088%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1036%
|
500−550
+1036%
|
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1088%
|
95−100
+1088%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−1022%
|
550−600
+1022%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−1054%
|
300−310
+1054%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1088%
|
95−100
+1088%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1036%
|
500−550
+1036%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1088%
|
95−100
+1088%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−1054%
|
300−310
+1054%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1088%
|
95−100
+1088%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1036%
|
500−550
+1036%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−1058%
|
220−230
+1058%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−1074%
|
270−280
+1074%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−1074%
|
270−280
+1074%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−1088%
|
190−200
+1088%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.37 | 28.22 |
| Recency | 1 August 2013 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3050 8 GB has a 1090.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB 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.
