GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU vs GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU 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
B +7.6%NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU leads in this scenario (up to 7.6% 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 3070 Laptop GPU is better1
Memory bus 128 bit more256 bit vs 128 bit
Where GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU is better1
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 7.6% faster2,970 samples/min vs 2,761 samples/min
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.
- B ahead by 7.6%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU2,760.6 samples/minGeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU2,970.2 samples/minPosition among tested models (67, OptiX)
A · 2,761B · 2,97005,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU is ahead by 7.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU
2,760.6 samples/min · community measurement, sample 118 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 118 submissions (5 outliers excluded), interquartile range 2251.76–2939.6; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-08-15; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU
2,970.2 samples/min · community measurement, sample 132 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 132 submissions (13 outliers excluded), interquartile range 2856.92–3033.55; submissions 2025-07-20 to 2026-08-10; 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 (2)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 2,804.4 | 2,727.1 | A +2.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 2,551.9 | 2,580.1 | B +1.1% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (71)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 31.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 31.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 30.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 28.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 15.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 17.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 16.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 17.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 95.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 102.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 99.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 134.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 57.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 65.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 60.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 61.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 62.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 61.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 67.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 63.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 33.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 36.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 38.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 38.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (CUDA) | 100.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | 105.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 114.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 105.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 74.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 82.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 122.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 81.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 181.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 190.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 204.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 178.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 76.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 86.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 80.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 82.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (CUDA) | 254.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 231.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 324.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 261.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 94.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 104.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 123.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 121.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 1,644.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 1,639.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 1,712.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 1,667.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 2,168.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 1,780.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 2,914.8 | 2,990.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 3,023.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 3,003.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.2GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 2,976 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 3,213.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 2,946.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 3,287.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 3,248.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 3,486.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 3,241.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 2,872.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 3,005.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 2,905.5 | 2,804.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 2,692.5 | 2,993.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 2,685.1 | 2,459.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 2,370.4 | 2,465.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 2,974.9 | 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 3070 Laptop GPU | B · GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| Architecture | Ampere | Blackwell | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 5,120 (CUDA cores) | 2,560 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,290–1,620 MHz | 1,500–2,662 MHz | not directly comparable |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 8 GB | 8 GB | equal |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR7 | differs |
| Memory bus | 256 bit | 128 bit | A: 128 bit more |
| 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. | no data | 35–100 W (graphics subsystem power) | no data for A |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 5.0 | no data for A |
Chip
Architecture
AAmpere
BBlackwell
differsShader units
A5,120 (CUDA cores)
B2,560 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Boost clock
A1,290–1,620 MHz
B1,500–2,662 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
B8 GB
equalMemory type
AGDDR6
BGDDR7
differsMemory bus
A256 bit
B128 bit
A: 128 bit more
Power and dimensions
Board power
Ano data
B35–100 W (graphics subsystem power)
no data for ATGP (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.
Interface
Ano data
BPCIe 5.0
no data for A
“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
How much video memory do NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU have?
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU: 8 GB GDDR6, 256-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU: 8 GB GDDR7, 128-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU or NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU?
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPU leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
Data sources (3)
- NVIDIA — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop GPUchecked November 7, 2026
- Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.90, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.91.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.92, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.93.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, 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 3.0.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, 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 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, 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.