Component comparison
GeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce RTX 4070
GeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce RTX 4070 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 3050
- + Die size (mm²) (+94 mm²)
B
GeForce RTX 4070
- + Release year (+2)
- + VRAM (GB) (+4 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+500 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+312 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+40 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-3 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+27,100M)
- + CUDA cores (+3840)
- + TMUs (+120)
- + ROPs (+32)
- + RT cores (+30)
- + Tensor cores (+120)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+23.65 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+115.42 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+369.45 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+14.5)
- + PassMark (overall) (+7611)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+7463)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+18102)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+105230)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+97121)
- + Normalized score (+21.4)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 3050
|
Component B
GeForce RTX 4070
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2021 | 2023 (+2) |
| VRAM (GB) | 4 GB | 8 GB (+4 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 2000 MHz (+500 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 192 GB/s | 504 GB/s (+312 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit | 192 bit (+64 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 75 W | 115 W (+40 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 8 nm | 5 nm (-3 nm) |
| Transistors (M) | 8,700M | 35,800M (+27,100M) |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² (+94 mm²) | 294 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1065 MHz | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1343 MHz | — |
| CUDA cores | 2,048 | 5,888 (+3840) |
| TMUs | 64 | 184 (+120) |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 (+32) |
| RT cores | 16 | 46 (+30) |
| Tensor cores | 64 | 184 (+120) |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 5.50 TFLOPS | 29.15 TFLOPS (+23.65 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 42.98 GPixel/s | 158.40 GPixel/s (+115.42 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 85.95 GTexel/s | 455.40 GTexel/s (+369.45 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 17.0 | 31.5 (+14.5) |
| PassMark (overall) | 11,878 | 19,489 (+7611) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 4,497 | 11,960 (+7463) |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 11,949 | 30,051 (+18102) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 63,465 | 168,695 (+105230) |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 62,164 | 159,285 (+97121) |
| Normalized score | 63.1 | 84.5 (+21.4) |
Only in component B
CUDA
DLSS
ray_tracing
In both
ReBAR
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 3050 | GeForce RTX 4070 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assassin's Creed Mirage | 55 FPS | 116 FPS | 110.9% (B) |
| Avatar Frontiers of Pandora | 32 FPS | 65 FPS | 103.1% (B) |
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 45 FPS | 73 FPS | 62.2% (B) |
| Battlefield 5 | 93 FPS | 140 FPS | 50.5% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170 FPS | 250 FPS | 47.1% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66 FPS | 135 FPS | 104.5% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 1.6 | 46 FPS | 58 FPS | 26.1% (B) |
| Dota 2 | 118 FPS | 178 FPS | 50.8% (B) |
| F1 2021 | 105 FPS | 163 FPS | 55.2% (B) |
| F1 22 | 86 FPS | 109 FPS | 26.7% (B) |
| F1 23 | 87 FPS | 153 FPS | 75.9% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 68 FPS | 139 FPS | 104.4% (B) |
| Final Fantasy XV Benchmark | 44 FPS | 41 FPS | +7.3% (A) |
| Fortnite | 110 FPS | 200 FPS | 81.8% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90 FPS | 180 FPS | 100% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87 FPS | 190 FPS | 118.4% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| GTA V | 95 FPS | 134 FPS | 41.1% (B) |
| Metro Exodus | 49 FPS | 111 FPS | 126.5% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 50 FPS | 160 FPS | 220% (B) |
| Returnal | 34 FPS | 64 FPS | 88.2% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 81 FPS | 229 FPS | 182.7% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 71 FPS | 124 FPS | 74.6% (B) |
| Tiny Tina's Wonderlands | 56 FPS | 74 FPS | 32.1% (B) |
| Valorant | 150 FPS | 260 FPS | 73.3% (B) |
| X-Plane 11.11 | 62 FPS | 52 FPS | +19.2% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 4070 wins 23 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).