Alleged RTX 3050 6GB specifications leak — significant cuts to core count, memory bandwidth, clock speed, and TDP

(Image credit: Nvidia)

The apparent specifications for the RTX 3050 6GB have been published by Videocardz, and if true, then the RTX 3050 6GB is more than just a 3050 8GB with less VRAM. Previously it was believed the 3050 6GB would just have less memory and slower memory bandwidth, but Videocardz claims it's substantially cut down in pretty much every aspect. This means it won't make our list of the Best GPUs for Gaming. 

Previous 3050 6GB rumors suggested that only the VRAM capacity and bandwidth would be changed. Lowering the amount of VRAM from 8GB to 6GB meant deactivating 32 bits of the 128-bit wide memory bus that exists in the 3050, in turn decreasing bandwidth.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
RTX 3050 6GB Specifications
Row 0 - Cell 0 RTX 3050 6GB*RTX 3050 8GB
CUDA Cores23042560
Base Clock1,042MHz1,552MHz
Boost Clock1,470MHz1,777MHz
VRAM Bus Width96-bit128-bit
VRAM Bandwidh168GBs/s224GB/s

*Specifications are unconfirmed.

However, the RTX 3050 6GB will seemingly be cut-down not just in memory, but in every specification that's relevant to performance. While lowering memory capacity and bandwidth may have had a limited effect on performance depending on the game, cutting down core count and frequency are even more impactful. Rough math indicates that the RTX 3050 6GB might only have roughly 75% of the performance of its 8GB counterpart, depending on the game of course.

The RTX 3050 8GB is already a somewhat slow card that found itself between the RX 6500 XT and the RX 6600 in our review. Cutting down this performance even further would likely make the 3050 6GB more comparable to the 6500 XT, which is AMD's second lowest-end GPU from the RX 6000 series available at retail.

Of course, the 3050 6GB would have two notable advantages over the 6500 XT. It would have 6GB against the 6500 XT's 4GB, and the low TDP of the 3050 6GB implies that it won't require a power connector, as a 16-lane PCIe slot can deliver 75 watts. There will be at least one passively-cooled 3050 6GB, which is certainly good for users who want quiet gaming PCs.

While lower VRAM capacity is often tied to a drop in core count with Nvidia GPUs (such as with the GTX 1060 3GB and the RTX 3080 10GB), the only other time we've seen something like this was with the RTX 4080 12GB. That GPU doesn't exist anymore, as Nvidia rebranded it to the RTX 4070 Ti and dropped the price accordingly.

Videocardz says the RTX 3050 6GB will release in February, which is in line with previous rumors. It's all but certain that it at least won't launch in January, as it would conflict with the release schedule for the RTX 40 Super series.

Matthew Connatser

Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.

  • -Fran-
    It really boils down to this: "Really should be the RTX 3040."

    200% agree.

    This is just nVidia's marketing doing stupid stuff with names, AGAIN.

  • Neilbob
    So we all know that there are no bad products, only bad prices.

    Seems to me that which one of those will happen is obvious just from the fact that you can still charge silly money for a product ending in the number 50 rather than 40.

    Which isn't saying much. After all, they manage to charge silly money for that other product ending in the number 30...
  • The Historical Fidelity
    I feel like this product is a 1030/1630 replacement since it’s low profile and has no external power requirements. Let’s see what the price ends up being.
  • Giroro
    I would be totally fine with the RTX 3050 6GB if it were sold at a price worthy of a cut-down version of their lowest-end last-gen/obsolete GPU.
    So, like, $80-$100

    But we all know that would never happen. The cheapest Nvidia gaming card on earth right now is $160 for a 5 year old GTX 1650. So classic Nvidia logic dictates: "the RTX 3050 6GB performs 25% better than a GTX 1650, so it should be exactly 25% more expensive... ehh actually and we have to add a fee on top for all those fancy new RTX features."
    So I fully expect the RTX 3050 6GB to be $200-$230 (Which is the market rate for a 3050 8GB).

    Face it. If the Nvidia ultra-rich elite wanted to sully their luxury brand by letting "the poors" have access to gaming, then they never would have discontinued production of the GTX 1650/1660 in the first place.
    That would be like if Rolex made a watch that cost $80. These products aren't for working class people anymore, and we just need to get over it. They are a dudebro Crypto and AI company who doesn't need or probably even want lowly gamers to buy their lavish products. Just sit back and hope game devs see the value of designing their games for attainable hardware.
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    The real problem, of course, is a lack of price competiton. AMD's current lowest end card, the RX 7600, is $300, $80 more than the RTX 3050 8GB, as is the Arc A770. At the market this card is targeting, there simply is no competition, so nVidia can do anything they want. Now if AMD dropped a RX 7500 8GB that had 75fps average performance at 1920x1080 for $150 then...Well nVidia probably would still charge $200 for the 3050 6GB but at least there'd be SOME competition.

  • usertests
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    The real problem, of course, is a lack of price competiton. AMD's current lowest end card, the RX 7600, is $300,
    RX 7600 is clearly selling at $270 in the US. Which is still too high but that can come down.

    A 3050 isn't even current-gen, so it should be compared to prev-gen products like the RX 6600, which is closer to $210 and faster than the RTX 3050 8GB.
  • Notton
    It's slower and more power hungry than a RTX 4050 mobile.

    Seeing as it is being released this late in the cycle, I guess nvidia is dumping their worst batch of GA107 dies?
  • Amdlova
    That a dream card for pixeled games with ray tracing.