GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs Radeon RX 590

Place in the ranking	229	165
Place by popularity	not in top-100	11
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	25.05	69.36
Power efficiency	9.55	17.26
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Polaris 30	GA106
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	15 November 2018 (6 years ago)	4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3050 8 GB has 177% better value for money than RX 590.

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	2304	2560
Core clock speed	1469 MHz	1552 MHz
Boost clock speed	1545 MHz	1777 MHz
Number of transistors	5,700 million	12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	130 Watt
Texture fill rate	222.5	142.2
Floating-point processing power	7.119 TFLOPS	9.098 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	144	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	241 mm	242 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-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	8 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	2000 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	256.0 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI	+	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	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.

RX 590 24.38

RTX 3050 8 GB 32.73
+34.2%

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.

RX 590 9393

RTX 3050 8 GB 12612
+34.3%

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	101 −28.7%	130−140 +28.7%
1440p	58 −29.3%	75−80 +29.3%
4K	35 −28.6%	45−50 +28.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.76	1.92
1440p	4.81	3.32
4K	7.97	5.53

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

40−45

−25%

50−55
+25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65 −30.8%	85−90 +30.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	86 −27.9%	110−120 +27.9%
Battlefield 5	136 −32.4%	180−190 +32.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	69 −30.4%	90−95 +30.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −25%	50−55 +25%
Far Cry 5	90 −33.3%	120−130 +33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	90 −33.3%	120−130 +33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	274 −27.7%	350−400 +27.7%
Hitman 3	45−50 −32.7%	65−70 +32.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	301 −32.9%	400−450 +32.9%
Metro Exodus	124 −29%	160−170 +29%
Red Dead Redemption 2	91 −31.9%	120−130 +31.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	140 −28.6%	180−190 +28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	272 −28.7%	350−400 +28.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	113 −32.7%	150−160 +32.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	73 −30.1%	95−100 +30.1%
Battlefield 5	122 −31.1%	160−170 +31.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	64 −32.8%	85−90 +32.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −25%	50−55 +25%
Far Cry 5	74 −28.4%	95−100 +28.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	71 −33.8%	95−100 +33.8%
Forza Horizon 4	259 −15.8%	300−310 +15.8%
Hitman 3	45−50 −32.7%	65−70 +32.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	287 −22%	350−400 +22%
Metro Exodus	97 −34%	130−140 +34%
Red Dead Redemption 2	74 −28.4%	95−100 +28.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	114 −31.6%	150−160 +31.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −32.1%	70−75 +32.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	261 −34.1%	350−400 +34.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	39 −28.2%	50−55 +28.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	62 −29%	80−85 +29%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	46 −30.4%	60−65 +30.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −25%	50−55 +25%
Far Cry 5	55 −27.3%	70−75 +27.3%
Forza Horizon 4	91 −31.9%	120−130 +31.9%
Hitman 3	45−50 −32.7%	65−70 +32.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	96 −25%	120−130 +25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100 −30%	130−140 +30%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	51 −27.5%	65−70 +27.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35 −28.6%	45−50 +28.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−32.8%

85−90
+32.8%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −30.4%	60−65 +30.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −21.6%	45−50 +21.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 −20%	30−33 +20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55 −27.3%	70−75 +27.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	38 −31.6%	50−55 +31.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −25%	35−40 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 −29.5%	180−190 +29.5%
Hitman 3	27−30 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	72 −31.9%	95−100 +31.9%
Metro Exodus	58 −29.3%	75−80 +29.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70 −28.6%	90−95 +28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 −33.3%	40−45 +33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	203 −33%	270−280 +33%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−27.9%

55−60
+27.9%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	39 −28.2%	50−55 +28.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	26 −15.4%	30−33 +15.4%
Hitman 3	18−20 −26.3%	24−27 +26.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	57 −31.6%	75−80 +31.6%
Metro Exodus	36 −25%	45−50 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	32 −25%	40−45 +25%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 −26.3%	24−27 +26.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 −31%	55−60 +31%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20 −20%	24−27 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	17 −23.5%	21−24 +23.5%
Forza Horizon 4	46 −30.4%	60−65 +30.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40 −25%	50−55 +25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	13 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−33.3%

40−45
+33.3%

This is how RX 590 and RTX 3050 8 GB compete in popular games:

RTX 3050 8 GB is 29% faster in 1080p
RTX 3050 8 GB is 29% faster in 1440p
RTX 3050 8 GB is 29% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	24.38	32.73
Recency	15 November 2018	4 January 2022
Chip lithography	12 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	130 Watt

RTX 3050 8 GB has a 34.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 34.6% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 590 in performance tests.

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