GeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
Compare with AIRendering and compute
A +33%NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 leads in this scenario (up to 33% in comparable benchmarks).
No comparable benchmarks yet: gaming: rasterization, gaming: ray tracing, power efficiency.
Advantages
Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.
Where GeForce RTX 3050 is better1
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 17.6% faster1,350 samples/min vs 1,148 samples/min
Where GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU is better0
No advantages found in our data.
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions. Laptop chip results depend on the laptop model: its maker sets the power limit and cooling.
- A ahead by 17.6%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce RTX 30501,350.2 samples/minGeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU1,148.5 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
B · 1,148A · 1,35005,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 is ahead by 17.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050
1,350.2 samples/min · community measurement, sample 142 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 142 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 1198.64–1450.25; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-07-20; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU
1,148.5 samples/min · community measurement, sample 191 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 191 submissions (7 outliers excluded), interquartile range 994.91–1201.19; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-06-03; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Cycles render in Blender Benchmark. Median of the sum of samples per minute over three scenes after removing outliers.
Other comparable benchmarks (13)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,379.4 | 1,157.3 | A +19.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,223.8 | 1,122.4 | A +9% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,127.9 | 980 | A +15.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,616.5 | 1,244.2 | A +29.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,584.8 | 1,244.3 | A +27.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,587.8 | 1,230.2 | A +29.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,600.7 | 1,203.7 | A +33% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,714.1 | 1,307.8 | A +31.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,656 | 1,326.6 | A +24.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,497.2 | 1,150.6 | A +30.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,428.1 | 1,184.9 | A +20.5% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,387.3 | 1,115.1 | A +24.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,382.6 | 1,145.3 | A +20.7% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (34)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 66.7 | 77.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 40.3 | 46.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 310.2 | 343.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 134.6 | 153.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 142.4 | 165.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 80.1 | 95.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 227.1 | 285.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 159.1 | 196.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 411 | 482.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 187.8 | 216.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 600.1 | 4,335.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 251.4 | 313.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 909.7 | 730.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 823.9 | 539.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 851.8 | 723.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 789.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 803.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,629.3 | 1,261.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,594.9 | 1,237.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,198.1 | 837.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,185.7 | 1,101.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | — | 75.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | — | 49.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 553.1 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 647.7 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 740.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 599.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 720.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 688.3 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 469 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 516.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | — | 690.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 1,123.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 1,074.3 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
Chip maker values. The laptop maker sets the power limit and clocks in each laptop.
| Specification | A · GeForce RTX 3050 | B · GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | no data | GA107 | no data for A |
| Architecture | Ampere | Ampere | equal |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 2,560 (CUDA cores) | no data | no data for B |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,550 MHz | no data | no data for B |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,780 MHz | 990–1,740 MHz | not directly comparable |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 8 GB | no data | no data for B |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 | equal |
| Memory bus | 128 bit | no data | no data for B |
| Power and dimensions | |||
| Board powerTGP (NVIDIA) and TBP (AMD/Intel) are calculated differently; higher is not better. For laptops, the chip maker sets the range and the laptop maker picks the value, so the same chip behaves differently in different laptops. | 130 W (board power) | no data | no data for B |
| Recommended PSU | 550 W | no data | no data for B |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 4.0 x8 | differs |
Chip
GPU chip
Ano data
BGA107
no data for AArchitecture
AAmpere
BAmpere
equalShader units
A2,560 (CUDA cores)
Bno data
no data for BShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,550 MHz
Bno data
no data for BBoost clock
A1,780 MHz
B990–1,740 MHz
not directly comparableClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit.
Memory
Video memory
A8 GB
Bno data
no data for BMemory type
AGDDR6
BGDDR6
equalMemory bus
A128 bit
Bno data
no data for B
Power and dimensions
Board power
A130 W (board power)
Bno data
no data for BTGP (NVIDIA) and TBP (AMD/Intel) are calculated differently; higher is not better. For laptops, the chip maker sets the range and the laptop maker picks the value, so the same chip behaves differently in different laptops.
Recommended PSU
A550 W
Bno data
no data for BInterface
APCIe 4.0
BPCIe 4.0 x8
differs
“More” does not always mean “better”: higher power draw or size is a system requirement, not an advantage (such bars are dimmed).
Compare with AI
An AI model reviews the specs and benchmarks of this pair and gives a plain-language verdict on who each model suits.
Questions and answers
Which PCIe interface do the cards use?
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050: PCIe 4.0. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU: PCIe 4.0 x8.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 or NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU?
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
- ModelNVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050
- ModelNVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPU
- ComparisonGeForce RTX 2060 vs GeForce RTX 3050
- ComparisonGeForce GTX 1660 vs GeForce RTX 3050
- ComparisonGeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce RTX 3060
- ComparisonGeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce RTX 3050
- ComparisonGeForce RTX 3050 vs Radeon RX 6600
- ComparisonGeForce GTX 1060 vs GeForce RTX 3050
Data sources (3)
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop GPUchecked November 7, 2026
- Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.93.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.92, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.0.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.3.0checked November 14, 2026
- Wikipedia (English) — release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.