NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M

Compare NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M 2 GB, specs and GPU benchmark score. Which is the better graphics card for the money?

Benchmark Score
Other Benchmarks
Specifications
Comments (0)
Popular Comparisons

GPU Comparison

Quickly search and compare graphics cards

NVIDIA Quadro 3000M

Price

The cheapest price from our partner retailers

$ 229.99

$ 77.11

$ 152.88 significantly less expensive

Benchmark Score

Overall Score

General gaming and workstation score

3468 points

2094% significantly better overall score

158 points

Flux Core frame rate

Volumetric ray casting test, a computationally expensive method of rendering high-quality scenes

82 FPS

78 FPS significantly higher Flux Core frame rate

5 FPS

Electron frame rate

Randomly generated noise sphere test

41 FPS

38 FPS significantly higher Electron frame rate

3 FPS

City frame rate

Procedurally generated city scene with voxel rendering

59 FPS

56 FPS significantly higher City frame rate

3 FPS

Clouds frame rate

Real-time noise calculation and ray marching test

31 FPS

30 FPS significantly higher Clouds frame rate

1 FPS

Free GPU Benchmark

Want to compare your graphics card against the GeForce RTX 3050 and the Quadro 3000M? Download our free and quick PC Performance Test.

Download GPU Benchmark

Other Benchmarks

Geekbench 5 (OpenCL) score

OpenCL compute benchmark

71667 points

2376% significantly higher Geekbench 5 (OpenCL) score

2894 points

Geekbench 6 (OpenCL) score

OpenCL compute benchmark

63483 points

1601% significantly higher Geekbench 6 (OpenCL) score

3731 points

Specifications

Core Clock Speed

Nominal chip frequency

1552 MHz

244% significantly higher core clock speed

450 MHz

Memory

Onboard memory size for textures and vertices

8 GiB

300% significantly more memory

2 GiB

Memory Bus Width

Number of parallel lines to the memory chips

128 Bit

256 Bit

100% significantly larger memory bus width

Memory Bandwidth

Data transfer speed between GPU core and memory

224 GB/s

180% significantly higher memory bandwidth

80 GB/s

TDP

Thermal Design Power: Measure of heat generated by the GPU

130 W

75 W

73% significantly lower TDP

Pixel Rate

Number of pixels that can be rendered per second

56.86 Gigapixels/s

1163% significantly higher pixel rate

4.5 Gigapixels/s

Texture Rate

Number of textured pixels that can be rendered per second

142.2 Gigatexels/s

689% significantly higher texture rate

18 Gigatexels/s

Shading Units

Number of processors dedicated to shader processing

2560

966% significantly more shading units

240

Texture Mapping Units

Number of processors dedicated to applying textures

100% significantly more texture mapping units

Render Output Processors

Number of processors dedicated to final pixel rendering

Identical

Other details

Rank

Ranking in the hardwareDB database

139th of 586

464th of 586

Release date

The official date of release of this chip

2022 January

Memory Type

The type of memory used by this chip

GDDR6

GDDR5

DirectX Support

Maximum version of DirectX supported

12.0

11.0

OpenGL Support

Maximum version of OpenGL supported

4.6

4.5

GeForce RTX 3050 vs Quadro 3000M comparison

According to the hardwareDB Benchmark, the GeForce RTX 3050 GPU is faster than the Quadro 3000M in gaming.

The GeForce RTX 3050 has a significantly higher core clock speed. The core clock speed (or base speed) is the frequency at which the GPU core runs. This metric makes sense when comparing GPUs of a similar architecture or generation.

As stated by the manufacturer, the GeForce RTX 3050 has significantly more memory with 8 GiB of memory compared to 2 GiB. Lots of memory is good when playing at high resolutions or with many monitors.

In addition, the Quadro 3000M has a significantly lower TDP at 75 W when compared to the GeForce RTX 3050 at 130 W. TDP (Thermal Design Power) measures total heat output from the chip.

In conclusion, all specs and GPU benchmarks considered, will recommend the GeForce RTX 3050 over the Quadro 3000M.