Component comparison
GeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce GTX 1650 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 3050
- + Release year (+1)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+64 GB/s)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+25 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-4 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+4,000M)
- + CUDA cores (+1024)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+3.20 TFLOPS)
- + PassMark (overall) (+4762)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+1009)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+2636)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+24312)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+25916)
- + Normalized score (+9.8)
B
GeForce GTX 1650
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+10.30 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+7.29 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+9.5)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 3050
|
Component B
GeForce GTX 1650
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2021 (+1) | 2020 |
| VRAM (GB) | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 192 GB/s (+64 GB/s) | 128 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit | 128 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 75 W (+25 W) | 50 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 8 nm (-4 nm) | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 8,700M (+4,000M) | 4,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² | 200 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1065 MHz | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1343 MHz | — |
| CUDA cores | 2,048 (+1024) | 1,024 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| RT cores | 16 | — |
| Tensor cores | 64 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 5.50 TFLOPS (+3.20 TFLOPS) | 2.30 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 42.98 GPixel/s | 53.28 GPixel/s (+10.30 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 85.95 GTexel/s | 93.24 GTexel/s (+7.29 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 17.0 | 26.4 (+9.5) |
| PassMark (overall) | 11,878 (+4762) | 7,116 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 4,497 (+1009) | 3,488 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 11,949 (+2636) | 9,313 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 63,465 (+24312) | 39,153 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 62,164 (+25916) | 36,248 |
| Normalized score | 63.1 (+9.8) | 53.3 |
Only in component A
ReBAR
Only in component B
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 3050 | GeForce GTX 1650 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assassin's Creed Mirage | 55 FPS | 28 FPS | +96.4% (A) |
| Avatar Frontiers of Pandora | 32 FPS | 13 FPS | +146.2% (A) |
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 45 FPS | 33 FPS | +36.4% (A) |
| Battlefield 5 | 93 FPS | 60 FPS | +55% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170 FPS | 131 FPS | +29.8% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66 FPS | 52 FPS | +26.9% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 1.6 | 46 FPS | 32 FPS | +43.8% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 118 FPS | 96 FPS | +22.9% (A) |
| F1 2021 | 105 FPS | 77 FPS | +36.4% (A) |
| F1 22 | 86 FPS | 74 FPS | +16.2% (A) |
| F1 23 | 87 FPS | 66 FPS | +31.8% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 68 FPS | 60 FPS | +13.3% (A) |
| Final Fantasy XV Benchmark | 44 FPS | 32 FPS | +37.5% (A) |
| Fortnite | 110 FPS | 90 FPS | +22.2% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90 FPS | 82 FPS | +9.8% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87 FPS | 73 FPS | +19.2% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| GTA V | 95 FPS | 68 FPS | +39.7% (A) |
| Metro Exodus | 49 FPS | 33 FPS | +48.5% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 50 FPS | 46 FPS | +8.7% (A) |
| Returnal | 34 FPS | 33 FPS | +3% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 81 FPS | 62 FPS | +30.6% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 71 FPS | 45 FPS | +57.8% (A) |
| Valorant | 150 FPS | 164 FPS | 9.3% (B) |
| X-Plane 11.11 | 62 FPS | 45 FPS | +37.8% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 3050 wins 13 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).