GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB vs ATI Radeon Xpress 1150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Xpress 1150 with GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 4 GB outperforms ATI Xpress 1150 by a whopping 25667% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1479 | 319 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 37 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 35.89 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 13.56 |
| Architecture | Rage 9 (2003−2006) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | RS485 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 May 2006 (18 years ago) | 27 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
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 | 6 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 400 MHz | 1740 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 110 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 0.8 | 111.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 7.127 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 2 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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 1.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 192.0 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 outputs | 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 | 9.0 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−24900%
|
250−260
+24900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−24900%
|
250−260
+24900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−24900%
|
250−260
+24900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−24900%
|
250−260
+24900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−24900%
|
500−550
+24900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−24900%
|
1500−1550
+24900%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−25525%
|
6150−6200
+25525%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−24900%
|
250−260
+24900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−25456%
|
2300−2350
+25456%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−24900%
|
250−260
+24900%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−25525%
|
2050−2100
+25525%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−24900%
|
500−550
+24900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−24900%
|
1500−1550
+24900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−24900%
|
750−800
+24900%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−25525%
|
6150−6200
+25525%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−24900%
|
250−260
+24900%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−25525%
|
2050−2100
+25525%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−24900%
|
500−550
+24900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−24900%
|
1500−1550
+24900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−24900%
|
750−800
+24900%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−25525%
|
6150−6200
+25525%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−24900%
|
250−260
+24900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−25567%
|
3850−3900
+25567%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−24900%
|
250−260
+24900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−24900%
|
250−260
+24900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−24900%
|
500−550
+24900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−24900%
|
500−550
+24900%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.06 | 15.46 |
| Recency | 23 May 2006 | 27 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 110 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3050 4 GB has a 25666.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and a 1275% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Xpress 1150 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Xpress 1150 is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3050 4 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.
