GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs Radeon RX Vega 3

Place in the ranking	779	165
Place by popularity	85	11
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	69.37
Power efficiency	13.61	17.26
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Picasso	GA106
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	6 January 2019 (5 years ago)	4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	192	2560
Core clock speed	300 MHz	1552 MHz
Boost clock speed	1001 MHz	1777 MHz
Number of transistors	4,940 million	12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	130 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.01	142.2
Floating-point processing power	0.3844 TFLOPS	9.098 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	12	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	IGP	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	no data	242 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	System Shared	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	8 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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	No outputs	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	6.6
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 Vega 3 2.98

RTX 3050 8 GB 32.74
+999%

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 Vega 3 1149

RTX 3050 8 GB 12612
+998%

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

−983%

130−140
+983%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

1.92

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7

−983%

65−70
+983%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 −971%	75−80 +971%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6 −983%	65−70 +983%
Battlefield 5	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6 −983%	65−70 +983%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −963%	170−180 +963%
Hitman 3	5 −900%	50−55 +900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −991%	240−250 +991%
Metro Exodus	7 −971%	75−80 +971%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6 −983%	65−70 +983%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −983%	130−140 +983%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −926%	400−450 +926%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −956%	95−100 +956%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Battlefield 5	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −963%	170−180 +963%
Hitman 3	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −991%	240−250 +991%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 −991%	120−130 +991%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	17 −959%	180−190 +959%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −926%	400−450 +926%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −956%	95−100 +956%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −963%	170−180 +963%
Hitman 3	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9 −956%	95−100 +956%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9 −956%	95−100 +956%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4 −900%	40−45 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −926%	400−450 +926%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

−971%

75−80
+971%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Hitman 3	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 −956%	190−200 +956%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−983%

65−70
+983%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−900%

40−45
+900%

This is how RX Vega 3 and RTX 3050 8 GB compete in popular games:

RTX 3050 8 GB is 983% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.98	32.74
Recency	6 January 2019	4 January 2022
Chip lithography	14 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	130 Watt

RX Vega 3 has 766.7% lower power consumption.

RTX 3050 8 GB, on the other hand, has a 998.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 3 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 3 is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3050 8 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.