OEM Nvidia RTX 3050 is ondanks dezelfde naam langzamer dan retailversies

Today we're checking out Nvidia's GeForce RTX 3050, a new upkeep GPU addition to the RTX 30 series. Even though this release adds a new low-finish Ampere offering to the lineup, it'due south based on the same GA106 silicon used by the RTX 3060.

The RTX 3050 drops the MSRP from $330 to $250, and so you can expect a meaning function of the dice to be disabled. Case in bespeak, the core configuration has been reduced from 3584 cores to merely 2560, a nigh 30% reduction, simply interestingly the aforementioned 48 ROPs remain. Although the core heave frequency remains the aforementioned at 1,777 MHz, the retentivity speed has been slightly reduced from 15 Gbps to 14 Gbps. Couple that with the smaller 128-flake wide memory bus and we end up with a 38% drop in bandwidth.

An advantage of this still is a 24% driblet in power use to just 130 watts, meaning a basic 550-watt power supply will exist more than sufficient to power an RTX 3050 gaming arrangement.

At present, when compared to the Radeon RX 6500 XT, the MSRP of the RTX 3050 is 25% college at $250, just of course, we await that information technology volition retail for more than than that which we'll discuss in more details in our conclusion. And then although the RTX 3050 will be more than plush, information technology is also a significantly meliorate production on paper than the budget Radeon, packing 8GB of VRAM, PCIe x8 bandwidth, four display outputs, AV1 decoding, and an actual hardware encoding engine. All the stuff you'd just expect on a modern graphics menu, but don't go with the 6500 XT.

Although Nvidia has cut the PCIe bandwidth in half, which nosotros never similar to run into on GPUs priced over $200, with 8GB of VRAM and x8 bandwidth, the PCIe 3.0 performance will exist the same as iv.0 in today's games, meaning the RTX 3050 won't be crippled on PCIe 3.0 systems like the 6500 XT was.

With that out of the way, let's talk test system specs and and then jump into the benchmark results.

For testing we're using our Ryzen 9 5950X GPU test system. Since we're testing GPU performance and wish to avoid introducing a CPU clogging which would skew the data, a loftier-end CPU works well for this purpose.

Besides, all benchmark data for this review is fresh. Nosotros've spent the last few weeks updating our mid-range GPU results for the 6500 XT and RTX 3050 reviews, and much of the testing has been done using dialed downward quality settings at 1080p and 1440p, appropriate for these segment of GPUs.

Benchmarks

Starting with Assassinator's Creed Valhalla, using the medium quality preset at 1080p, we detect that the RTX 3050 is adept for 79 fps on average, so hither it's basically a GTX 1660 Super. That made it xviii% faster than the 6500 XT using PCIe 4.0, and thirty% faster when compared to the PCIe 3.0 configuration. It was also just 8% slower than the RTX 2060, a decent result overall.

The 1440p data is much more than favorable for the RTX 3050, when compared to AMD's recently released 6500 XT. The 3050 is once more mimicking the operation of the GTX 1660 Super, meaning it was 38% faster than the 6500 XT, or 45% faster when limiting the Radeon GPU to PCIe 3.0.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested using the highest quality preset equally it's an old game now and our measuring stick for this testing, the 4GB 5500 XT was adept for over threescore fps on average, and so that seemed reasonable.

The RTX 3050 blasted past that result with 87 fps on average, edging information technology slightly ahead of the GTX 1660 Super this time. That fabricated information technology 34% faster than the 6500 XT or 85% faster when limiting the 6500 XT to PCIe iii.0. A super easy win here for Nvidia.

The situation worsens for the 6500 XT at 1440p once once again. Now fifty-fifty with PCIe 4.0 we can't even reach a 40 fps average, meanwhile the RTX 3050 brutal but shy of 60 fps and was seen matching the 1660 Super.

The Spotter Dogs: Legion results are quite good for the 6500 XT when using the medium quality preset. Here the RTX 3050 was skilful for 88 fps and that only fabricated it 17% faster than the 6500 XT, or 28% faster when compared to the PCIe iii.0 configuration, which remains a large win.

When compared to the 1660 Super, information technology was 5% faster and 15% slower than the 5600 XT and RTX 2060, so a little behind when compared to those older models.

The RTX 3050 does race away with it at 1440p, averaging over 60 fps to make it 28% faster than the 6500 XT or 36% faster than the PCIe 3.0 configuration. Information technology was also 10% faster than the GTX 1660 Super, but xiv-fifteen% slower than the RTX 2060 and 5600 XT.

For testing Rainbow Half-dozen Siege we're using the ultra quality preset with the Hard disk drive texture pack enabled. Every bit before, nosotros used the 5500 XT to constitute the test settings, and this GPU was expert for well over 100 fps at all times averaging 147 fps.

The RTX 3050 had no issue burdensome that result with 225 fps on average, making it just 11% slower than the RTX 2060 and xiv% faster than the GTX 1660 Super. Unbelievably, it was 92% faster than the 6500 XT, and allow'southward not even bother with the PCIe 3.0 result for that GPU.

Moving to 1440p sees the RTX 3050 trounce the 6500 XT by an embarrassing 110% margin, as it slotted in between the GTX 1660 Super and RTX 2060. Heck, it was only x% behind the RX 6600.

The RTX 3050 was 52% faster than the 6500 XT at 1080p using the second highest quality preset with 141 fps on boilerplate. PCIe 3.0 completely crippled the 6500 XT and at present the RTX 3050 is seen to be 114% faster, and I should note I got the exact same upshot using PCIe 3.0 with the RTX 3050.

Moving to 1440p increases the margin in favor of the 3050, which is at present 66% faster than the 6500 XT when using PCI 4.0 and 128% faster than the PCIe 3.0 configuration. Nosotros're also looking at slightly better performance than the GTX 1660 Super.

Next nosotros accept Horizon Nada Dawn where the 6500 XT using PCIe 4.0 did well relative to about other games with 72 fps on boilerplate. The RTX 3050 was 14% faster, though with both using PCIe 3.0 the GeForce GPU would exist a massive 55% faster.

Now the RTX 3050 is 24% faster than the 6500 XT at 1440p. It was also a few frames faster than the 1660 Super and trailed the RTX 2060 by 15%.

Moving on to Far Cry 6, nosotros find an boilerplate of 96 fps using the GeForce RTX 3050 at 1080p with the medium quality preset. As we've seen multiple times already, it'south basically delivering 1660 Super performance, though it wasn't a great deal slower than the 2060 in this ane, at least when looking at the average frame rate.

The 6500 XT turns in one of its meliorate figures in Far Cry 6 and as a result the 3050 was simply 14% faster, though the issue for the 6500 XT is PCIe three.0 and when compared to that configuration the 3050 was 37% faster.

The 6500 XT does crumble at 1440p, whereas the RTX 3050 remains strong, turning in over threescore fps on average to make it 42% faster.

In Doom Eternal, the RTX 3050 does extremely well matching the RTX 2060 with 178 fps on average. That meant it was 82% faster than the 6500 XT and 287% faster than the PCIe 3.0 configuration. That'southward all we need to say about that.

1440p is an ugly matter for the 6500 XT and it'southward disappointing to see that while the 4GB RX 570 can hit 60 fps and a very playable experience, the 6500 XT using PCIe 3.0 was reduced to 36 fps.

The RTX 3050 had no such issues though, pumping out a super impressive 130 fps while keeping 1% lows to a higher place 100 fps. Information technology was also xiii% faster than the RTX 2060 and just 11% slower than the RX 6600. A stellar result there.

Resident Evil Village isn't a very demanding game, especially with the counterbalanced quality preset, so it'southward no surprise that at 1080p the RTX 3050 is comfortably pushing over 100 fps, averaging 114 fps. This is GTX 1660 Super-like performance and it meant the new budget GeForce was 52% faster than the 6500 XT, or 78% faster if nosotros compare with the PCIe 3.0 configuration.

Adjacent up we take Decease Stranding, and this is another game that isn't terribly enervating, despite looking quite nice. The GTX 3050 was skillful for 108 fps using the default quality preset at 1080p and that placed it direct between the 1660 Super and GTX 2060, a great result.

Information technology was as well 24% faster than the 6500 XT and dropping the Radeon graphics menu down to PCIe 3.0 only extended the margin to 27%, and then you lot could argue that this is a practiced upshot for the Radeon.

Even at 1440p the 6500 XT hangs in there averaging 64 fps against the RTX 3050's 79 fps, which made the GeForce GPU 23% faster and given the price difference, even at MSPR, that's a decent result for AMD.

The RTX 3050 rendered 112 fps on average in Hitman iii using the medium quality preset at 1080p and that placed it very close to the RTX 2060, while beating the GTX 1660 Super by a 23% margin. It was as well 29% faster than the 6500 XT, or 42% faster when restricted to PCIe 3.0.

Even at 1440p, the RTX 3050 managed well over threescore fps and this made it 9% faster than the RTX 2060, and 35% faster than the 6500 XT, a great result given the electric current market place.

Concluding up we have Cyberpunk 2077, and here the RTX 3050 managed to break the 60 fps barrier with the medium quality preset, averaging 66 fps which all things considered is quite a good result. Unfortunately, information technology was eighteen% slower than the RTX 2060, only it was likewise 40% faster than the 6500 XT, or 69% faster when using PCIe 3.0.

Those margins remained at 1440p. Hither the RTX 3050 was 37% faster than the 6500 XT, or 58% faster when using PCIe 3.0. Information technology only managed 41 fps on average, then for this game I'd say the RTX 3050 is better suited for 1080p gameplay.

Power Consumption

The GeForce RTX 3050 is very calorie-free on power, pushing full system usage to only 277 watts in our Doom benchmark. Considering the performance output, that makes it much more than efficient than the 6500 XT, but fifty-fifty if we accept a more favorable game such as Expiry Stranding or Hitman 3, the RTX 3050 still stacks up well as it but increased total system usage over the 6500 XT by 15%.

PCIe 3.0 vs. 4.0

Although nosotros've mentioned that the RTX 3050 delivers the exact aforementioned level of operation using PCIe 3.0 or PCIe 4.0, here's a quick sample of this. We tested all 12 games and plant naught outside the margin of fault, though nearly results were exactly the same every bit shown below in Tomb Raider at 1440p.

Whereas the 6500 XT dropped performance by 13% with PCIe 3.0, we see no change for the RTX 3050. And then gamers limited to a PCIe 3.0 platform (which every bit of writing is likely a majority), the RTX 3050 is going to be significantly faster.

12 Game Average

And hither'south a look at the 12 game boilerplate data, which has been calculated using the geomean. The RTX 3050 averaged 108fps at 1080p, which fabricated it just 5% slower than the GTX 1660 Super, ten% slower than the RTX 2060, and 23% slower than the Radeon RX 6600.

When compared to the 6500 XT, nosotros're looking at a 37% performance boost, or a massive 74% increase when compared to the PCIe 3.0 result.

As nosotros ofttimes saw, the 1440p data is even more than barbarous for the 6500 XT. Here the RTX 3050 was 54% faster, or 85% faster when comparing PCIe 3.0 performance. The RTX 3050 also averaged 74 fps, pregnant it was more often than not good for over sixty fps at 1440p using respectable quality settings in many titles.

Ray Tracing Operation

We don't feel the RTX 3050's rasterization performance is powerful plenty to justify turning ray traced effects on, but you can, and some of you might want to anyway, so let's take a await.

Starting with Watch Dogs Legion, nosotros meet that stock the RTX 3050 is adept for 88 fps on boilerplate with the dialed down medium quality preset. Enabling DLSS without RT effects can be of big help, boosting the boilerplate frame rate past 26% for 111 fps, and at present we're looking at RX 6600-like performance.

Turning on ray tracing with the medium quality setting + DLSS dropped the average frame rate to 60 fps, which is still very playale, simply personally I'd rather play the game with a higher quality preset and perhaps leave DLSS enabled.

The game was playable with ray tracing enabled and DLSS, delivering ~60 fps on average. Without DLSS, the frame rate dropped into the depression 40s, and that'due south about the same level of ray tracing performance than yous can expect from the RX 6600 in this title.

Testing with Far Cry 6, which doesn't back up DLSS, sees the RTX 3050 able to comfortably suspension the 60 fps bulwark with ray tracing fully enabled. It was slower than the much more expensive RX 6600, only whereas it was 28% slower without RT enabled, it was simply 14% slower with it enabled.

On Cyberpunk 2077 we find that DLSS is most impressive, boosting rasterization performance by an incredible 48%, assuasive the RTX 3050 to trounce the Radeon RX 6600. Then using ray tracing without DLSS enabled saw the RTX 3060 and RX 6600 delivering comparable performance at 30-40 fps. But of course, enabling DLSS offered a big boost and and so the RTX 3050 was good for around 60 fps on average.

For those of you wondering why nosotros are comparing with the RX 6600 and not the 6500 XT for the ray tracing benchmark, we simply didn't want to be and then cruel. Seriously though, the 6500 XT is so weak with ray tracing enabled that the information isn't useful for comparison.

Cost Per Frame

Fourth dimension for the all important cost per frame analysis. We're going to beginning with the MSRP using the 1080p data, but nosotros'll include 1440p results and other data points (and assumptions) for a more realistic pricing comparison in just a moment.

But let's go the Fantasyland stuff out of the mode beginning... if the RTX 3050 was to sell for $250 (which information technology plain won't), it would smoke the $200 6500 XT, offering a disbelieve of 9% per frame or 28% when comparing the PCIe three.0 information.

That said, it would also be much worse value than the GTX 1650 Super and slightly worse than the RX 5600 XT, just that'due south to exist expected given the current marketplace, so we can accept a picayune fleck of stagnation, fifty-fifty if nosotros don't like it.

At present, if nosotros look at real world pricing, the situation is quite dissimilar.

For the used GPUs, we're taking the boilerplate sale price seen over at eBay over the past 4 weeks, and for the new GPUs the pricing is based on what we could detect in stock at places like Newegg. This places the 6500 XT at $270, and we're expecting the RTX 3050 to cost at to the lowest degree $450, though delight note that's an educated guess since the cards have yet to go along sale.

With the 6500 XT currently selling for at least 35% over the MSRP, we're expecting the RTX 3050 to come in at a much larger 80% premium, simply hopefully it will be less than that.

Even at $450, the RTX 3050 is ameliorate value for PCIe 3.0 owners as information technology reduces the price per frame when compared to the 6500 XT (PCIe three.0) past 4%, while including a number of important features.

If you have PCIe 4.0 and don't require any of the missing features of the 6500 XT and are willing to sacrifice some visual quality in order to accomplish acceptable performance, you could argue that the 6500 XT is "improve value" at $270, as information technology was eighteen% cheaper per frame than the RTX 3050, but that's a serious stretch given everything you get with the GeForce GPU.

If yous're targeting entry-level 1440p gaming, the RTX 3050 is without question the superior product, vastly superior in my opinion. Non simply are y'all probable to exist pushing well over lx fps with the GeForce GPU, simply it'south likewise merely 8% more expensive per frame when compared to the 6500 XT in the PCIe iv.0 way. And then for those of you lot gaming at 1440p, fifty-fifty at $450, the RTX 3050 is a much better product and well worth spending the extra money on, or saving up for.

It'southward worth keeping in heed that at this price point, the RX 6600 is technically ameliorate value as it costs just 24% more, only offers 26% more performance. Granted, they are about the aforementioned in terms of value, but when spending this much, the RX 6600 does become a viable alternative.

What Does Information technology Need to Toll?

While we fear the GeForce RTX 3050 will end up effectually $450 or more, and we've seen even there information technology's more often than not meliorate value than the 6500 XT, what toll does information technology demand to be before no one tin can debate the 6500 XT has whatsoever value? We believe that figure is ~$370, which is probable wishful thinking, but if Nvidia pulled that off it would be extremely embarrassing for AMD.

At $370, the RTX 3050 would be on par with the 6500 XT using PCIe in terms of toll per frame (1080p), while offering twice every bit much VRAM, twice equally much PCIe bandwidth, better decoding support, encoding back up, and more than than two brandish outputs. So I can't run across information technology being that competitive on pricing, but anywhere betwixt $370 and $450 is going to be rough for the 6500 XT.

What We Learned

How desirable the GeForce RTX 3050 ends up being volition depend entirely on pricing and availability. If information technology ends up costing over $500, it's going to exist a big fat nothing burger, and y'all might likewise just get the faster Radeon RX 6600.

Thus, it'south hard to say just how excited you lot should get nearly the RTX 3050. Based on the performance nosotros've merely seen, we know exactly where it should be priced in social club to brand sense, but making sense isn't something the GPU market does anymore...

We expected the Radeon 6500 XT to come up in at ~$300, where it'southward still awful, fifty-fifty when it'due south the cheapest "new" graphics card y'all can buy. And then far information technology's done slightly better, hitting $270, at least for now, simply ultimately sucks at that price and we don't recommend anyone to purchase it. Instead you should continue to hold out or buy a used graphics card. Bluntly, the RX 570 4GB for $220 2nd hand is a significantly better compromise, and easily downwardly the best option for those using a PCIe 3.0 system.

As for the new GeForce RTX 3050, we're expecting that part to come in for at least $450, but with the RTX 3060 selling for a 112% premium over MSRP on boilerplate, annihilation is possible. As noted before, we strongly believe that the RTX 3050 needs to be priced at around $370 to exist a corking deal in the electric current market and go the become-to selection for PC gamers.

At that price information technology would be unbeatable, even when looking at the second hand market, which sees the similarly performing GTX 1660 Super going for $470. Based on that unfortunate reality though, it's likely that the 3050 will go for something closer to $500.

If that's the case, then you're all-time off being upsold to the RX 6600, or perhaps the smarter selection would be to look for a cheaper 2d hand option to tie you over.

For now, we'll have to wait and see where the RTX 3050 lands and surely we'll exist following up in the coming weeks with a pricing update. Merely in the meantime, if y'all take the take chances to snap upward an RTX 3050 at the MSRP or effectually $400, that's a good deal in our stance.