GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 with GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 8 GB outperforms Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 by a whopping 230% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 454 | 166 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 11 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 69.24 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 17.36 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | GA106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 96 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1552 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1777 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 142.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 9.098 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | DDR4 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 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 data | 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.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
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
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−213%
|
100−105
+213%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−217%
|
130−140
+217%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−228%
|
190−200
+228%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−225%
|
130−140
+225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−225%
|
250−260
+225%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−227%
|
85−90
+227%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−224%
|
120−130
+224%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−213%
|
100−105
+213%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−206%
|
110−120
+206%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−217%
|
130−140
+217%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−228%
|
190−200
+228%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−225%
|
130−140
+225%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−214%
|
110−120
+214%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−215%
|
85−90
+215%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−225%
|
250−260
+225%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−227%
|
85−90
+227%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
−217%
|
95−100
+217%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−224%
|
120−130
+224%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
−215%
|
450−500
+215%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−213%
|
100−105
+213%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−206%
|
110−120
+206%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−217%
|
130−140
+217%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−225%
|
130−140
+225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−225%
|
250−260
+225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
−217%
|
95−100
+217%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
−228%
|
190−200
+228%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−208%
|
40−45
+208%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−220%
|
80−85
+220%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−218%
|
70−75
+218%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−218%
|
70−75
+218%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
−220%
|
80−85
+220%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−228%
|
95−100
+228%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.94 | 32.80 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3050 8 GB has a 230% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
