GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Radeon Pro WX 4150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4150 with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms Pro WX 4150 by a whopping 258% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 567 | 227 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.56 | 28.52 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 March 2017 (8 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 cores | 896 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1002 MHz | 1237 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1053 MHz | 1492 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 58.97 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.887 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 56 | no 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 size | medium sized | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | no data |
| 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 outputs | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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 | 18−20
−294%
| 71
+294%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−278%
| 34
+278%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−306%
|
65−70
+306%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−325%
|
130−140
+325%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−523%
|
81
+523%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−306%
|
65−70
+306%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−236%
|
90−95
+236%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−325%
|
130−140
+325%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−392%
|
64
+392%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−315%
|
83
+315%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−193%
|
110−120
+193%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−224%
|
90−95
+224%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
−295%
|
75−80
+295%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−283%
|
90−95
+283%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−126%
|
160−170
+126%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−306%
|
65−70
+306%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−236%
|
90−95
+236%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−325%
|
130−140
+325%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−137%
|
250−260
+137%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−254%
|
46
+254%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−133%
|
120−130
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−280%
|
76
+280%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−193%
|
110−120
+193%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−224%
|
90−95
+224%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
−295%
|
75−80
+295%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−279%
|
91
+279%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−300%
|
50−55
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−283%
|
90−95
+283%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−435%
|
91
+435%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−126%
|
160−170
+126%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−236%
|
90−95
+236%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−200%
|
39
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−133%
|
120−130
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−255%
|
71
+255%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−224%
|
90−95
+224%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−283%
|
90−95
+283%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−194%
|
50
+194%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−126%
|
160−170
+126%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
−193%
|
110−120
+193%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−373%
|
50−55
+373%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−227%
|
160−170
+227%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−400%
|
40
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−433%
|
30−35
+433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−346%
|
170−180
+346%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−173%
|
200−210
+173%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−450%
|
65−70
+450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−360%
|
21−24
+360%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−300%
|
52
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−281%
|
60−65
+281%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−270%
|
37
+270%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−331%
|
55−60
+331%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−280%
|
18−20
+280%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−144%
|
40−45
+144%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−303%
|
130−140
+303%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−620%
|
35−40
+620%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−239%
|
75−80
+239%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−320%
|
40−45
+320%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−317%
|
24−27
+317%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−333%
|
24−27
+333%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how Pro WX 4150 and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 294% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 278% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 1900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is ahead in 61 test (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.05 | 21.66 |
| Recency | 1 March 2017 | 6 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 60 Watt |
Pro WX 4150 has 20% lower power consumption.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 258% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4150 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 4150 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
