Nvidia's new entry-level gaming GPU is slow but very power-efficient — RTX 3050 6GB benchmarks show 20% lower performance than RTX 3050 8GB but draws 50% less power
RTX 3050 6GB is slower than the RTX 3050 8GB but way more efficient.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is about 20% slower than the GeForce RTX 3050 8GB, according to preliminary benchmarks by ComputerBase. The 6GB model launched yesterday is cut down in four key areas: memory, core count, clock speed, and power consumption. While the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is certainly a downgrade in performance, it also features some of the best efficiency and lowest power consumption among the best graphics cards.
ComputerBase got its hands on a GeForce RTX 3050 6GB early by ordering it from a retailer that had put up the card for sale too early. Although the publication hasn't finished testing, it has released some preliminary benchmarks. The model in question is MSI's GeForce RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 6G OC, one of the higher-end GeForce RTX 3050 6GB variants.
Incidentally, retail listings for the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB claim a CUDA core count of 2,048, but it seems this is a mistake. MSI's website claims its GeForce RTX 3050 6GB has 2,304 CUDA cores, as rumors initially claimed, and ComputerBase checked its 3050 6GB through GPU-Z, which also says 2,304 cores. It's unclear why retailers got this specification wrong, but ultimately, it seems that the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB isn't relatively as disadvantaged as thought.
| Header Cell - Column 0 | GeForce RTX 3050 6GB | GeForce RTX 3050 8GB |
|---|---|---|
| SMs | 18 | 20 |
| CUDA Cores | 2,304 | 2,560 |
| Base Clock | 1,042 MHz | 1,552 MHz |
| Boost Clock | 1,470 MHz | 1,777 MHz |
| VRAM | 6GB | 8GB |
| VRAM Bus Width | 96-bit | 128-bit |
| VRAM Bandwidth | 168 GB/s | 224 GB/s |
| TDP | 70W | 130W |
| Price | $179 | From $220 |
ComputerBase showed benchmarks in Cyberpunk 2077 Phantom Liberty and 3DMark Time Spy, Speed Way, and Port Royal. Though the performance margins varied a bit between each test, the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB was about 80% as fast as its 8GB counterpart, which is unsurprising given that it has fewer cores, lower clock speeds, and less memory bandwidth. Because the 6GB model also costs about 80% of the price, its value is the same as the GeForce RTX 3050 8GB.
However, there is one area that the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB excels in: power efficiency. For 20% less performance, the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB has nearly half the power draw, making it about 50% more efficient than the 8GB version. While power consumption isn't often a concern about low-end gaming GPUs, it enables the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB to offer unique models. For example, Palit has a GeForce RTX 3050 6GB with no active cooling at all, and MSI has a low-profile, dual-slot GeForce RTX 3050 6GB, which could rank among the fastest low-profile min-ITX GPUs today.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.
-
Alvar "Miles" Udell So it's like I said in the other thread: 20% less performance than the 8GB version, more memory and performance than its only competitor (RX 6500 XT 4GB) for a small price premium.Reply -
AgentBirdnest No power cable is cool!Reply
The name is NOT cool, though. Why not just call this thing the RT 3030? -
Amdlova That card it's made for make 4060 feel greater. Diminishing returns from the original 3050/3060Reply
But has no power needs. -
35below0 The 4060 draws 115w vs 70w for this 3050. Miniscule savings compared to the performace advantage of the 4060. Price difference is $170 vs $300 MSRP.Reply
Idk. It's an option. If i don't need a powerful GPU but don't want to be stuck with only on-board graphics, this is a choice? -
35below0 Reply
Would it benefit from the FSR 3 mod though?thisisaname said:30 series card so no Nvidia frame gen to boost its performance. -
jlake3 Reply
Remind me why this card's "only competitor" is the RX 6500 XT that costs 20% less (while only being 5% slower), and why the RX 6600 that only costs 5% more (while being 64% faster) isn't considered a competitor?Alvar Miles Udell said:So it's like I said in the other thread: 20% less performance than the 8GB version, more memory and performance than its only competitor (RX 6500 XT 4GB) for a small price premium. -
cryoburner Reply
Frame Gen does not boost performance. It smooths motion for high-refresh rate displays while actually hurting latency and image quality. If you are not already getting good 60fps+ performance before enabling the feature, then the more noticeable increase in latency and artifacting will tend to make the feature not worth enabling. As such, it's questionable how much value it would have on a lower-end card at this performance level, since the feature is mostly only available in newer games that tend to be more demanding.thisisaname said:30 series card so no Nvidia frame gen to boost its performance.
As for the card though, it's another scammy cut-down version of a card that's been given the same name as the existing 2 year old card it was based off of, only with significantly lower performance and VRAM. There's no good excuse for why they didn't call this card a "3040" or something. It was simply done to con unsuspecting customers into thinking they are getting a better card than they actually are. -
Alvar "Miles" Udell Reply
Because the 3050 is the ultra-entry level card from nVidia, and the 6500XT is AMD's ultra-entry level (as there is no RX 7500 on the market yet). Also in terms of performance the RX 6600 and RTX 3050 8GB perform on par, it is not "64% faster". With the creation of this 20% slower 3050 6GB variant it will compete against the RX 6500XT with the 8GB version remaining to compete against the 6600XT, with $180 pricing for the 3050 6GB confirmed via listings (including one on Newegg), and $140-$200 for the RX 6500XT 4GB.jlake3 said:Remind me why this card's "only competitor" is the RX 6500 XT that costs 20% less (while only being 5% slower), and why the RX 6600 that only costs 5% more (while being 64% faster) isn't considered a competitor?