GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs Radeon R9 270X

Place in the ranking	389	162
Place by popularity	not in top-100	11
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.64	69.02
Power efficiency	5.06	18.14
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Curacao	GA106
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3050 8 GB has 1124% better value for money than R9 270X.

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	1280	2560
Core clock speed	no data	1552 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	1777 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	130 Watt
Texture fill rate	84.00	142.2
Floating-point processing power	2.688 TFLOPS	9.098 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	80	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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	no data	242 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2 x 6-pin	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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	224.0 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
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 compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	-	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.

R9 270X 12.62

RTX 3050 8 GB 32.68
+159%

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.

R9 270X 4869

RTX 3050 8 GB 12612
+159%

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

Cyberpunk 2077

20−22

−150%

50−55
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Battlefield 5	40−45 −150%	100−105 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 −140%	60−65 +140%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −157%	90−95 +157%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 −153%	210−220 +153%
Hitman 3	24−27 −150%	60−65 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 −158%	170−180 +158%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −138%	100−105 +138%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −157%	90−95 +157%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −144%	100−105 +144%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 −154%	180−190 +154%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Battlefield 5	40−45 −150%	100−105 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 −140%	60−65 +140%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −157%	90−95 +157%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 −153%	210−220 +153%
Hitman 3	24−27 −150%	60−65 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 −158%	170−180 +158%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −138%	100−105 +138%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −157%	90−95 +157%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −144%	100−105 +144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −158%	80−85 +158%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 −154%	180−190 +154%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 −140%	60−65 +140%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 −153%	210−220 +153%
Hitman 3	24−27 −150%	60−65 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 −158%	170−180 +158%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −144%	100−105 +144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −158%	80−85 +158%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 −154%	180−190 +154%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40

−157%

90−95
+157%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −140%	60−65 +140%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 −137%	45−50 +137%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −158%	160−170 +158%
Hitman 3	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 −150%	65−70 +150%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −138%	50−55 +138%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 −153%	200−210 +153%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

−138%

50−55
+138%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%
Hitman 3	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 −150%	150−160 +150%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −145%	27−30 +145%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −145%	27−30 +145%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −135%	40−45 +135%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −145%	27−30 +145%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

−150%

30−33
+150%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	12.62	32.68
Recency	8 October 2013	4 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	130 Watt

RTX 3050 8 GB has a 159% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 38.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 270X in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.