AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile represent two very different eras of mobile GPU design, and the recorded data makes the gap between them unmistakable. The Radeon Pro 450, built on the Baffin chip and released in late 2016 as part of the Radeon Pro Mac 400 Series, sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 10804. The RTX 3050 A Mobile, an Ampere-based part released at the end of 2023, sits at the 44th percentile with an average benchmark score of 8746. Those percentile placements look deceptively close, but they reflect different benchmark mixes, and the single direct head-to-head result recorded in the database shows the NVIDIA part winning by an enormous margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one test appears in the recorded head-to-head set, but it is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3050 A Mobile scored 52998 while the Radeon Pro 450 scored 9002, an 83 percent gap in favor of the NVIDIA card. That is not a close result, and it is worth unpacking what it means.

OpenCL is a general compute workload, and this result lines up with the raw throughput figures in the specifications. The RTX 3050 A Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against 1,024.0 GFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 450, roughly a four-to-five-fold advantage in raw shader throughput. The OpenCL margin of 83 percent is smaller than the raw FP32 ratio would suggest, which indicates the older GCN 4.0 architecture still extracts reasonable efficiency from its smaller resource pool in this API. Still, the winner is not in question.

The broader benchmark records reinforce the same story even where the two cards cannot be compared test-for-test. The Radeon Pro 450's recorded results include 12893 in Geekbench Metal, 9002 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 10518 in Geekbench Vulkan. The RTX 3050 A Mobile's record includes a PassMark G3D score of 11664, a GPU compute score of 4419, and a set of per-API PassMark graphics results: 152 in DirectX 9, 61 in DirectX 10, 94 in DirectX 11, and 55 in DirectX 12, plus a 2D score of 526. The two cards were measured on largely non-overlapping test suites, so cross-test comparison should be treated with caution, but the one overlapping test is unambiguous: the RTX 3050 A Mobile wins it, and the head-to-head tally in the database records one win for NVIDIA and zero for AMD.

Context from each card's nearest rivals adds perspective. The Radeon Pro 450's average score of 10804 places it essentially level with the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10761), the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10883), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10690), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10629), all within roughly two percent of it. The RTX 3050 A Mobile's average of 8746 places it alongside the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8686), the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8851), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863). Note that the average-score ranking and the percentile ranking tell different stories here: the Radeon Pro 450 has the higher average score against its own test mix, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile sits five percentile points lower against the full database population. This is a reminder that average scores computed over different test suites are not directly interchangeable, and the single overlapping OpenCL result is the most reliable direct comparison available.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two parts spans seven years and several GPU generations. The Radeon Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip on the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, for a density of 24.4M transistors per square millimeter. The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung, with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die and a density of 43.5M per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die is more than twice the area and four times the transistor count, on a significantly denser node.

The resource counts scale accordingly. The Radeon Pro 450 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 1792 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also carries hardware the AMD part simply lacks: 14 RT cores for ray tracing and 56 tensor cores for accelerated matrix workloads. The Radeon Pro 450 has neither, which rules it out of hardware-accelerated ray tracing entirely.

Memory is another clear dividing line. The Radeon Pro 450 ships with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 5.1 Gbps effective for 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3050 A Mobile ships with 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus width, at 12 Gbps effective for 192.0 GB/s. That is 2.4 times the bandwidth and double the capacity, which matters for modern workloads that exceed a 2 GB framebuffer.

Throughput rates follow the same pattern. The Radeon Pro 450 manages 12.80 GPixel/s of pixel fill and 32.00 GTexel/s of texture fill; the RTX 3050 A Mobile delivers 42.98 GPixel/s and 75.21 GTexel/s respectively. Both parts run FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, at 1,024.0 GFLOPS for AMD and 4.813 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Platform connectivity and software support also differ. The Radeon Pro 450 connects over PCIe 3.0 x8, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x8. On APIs, the AMD card supports DirectX 12 (feature level 12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (feature level 12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it the newer DirectX and Vulkan feature sets. Both list display outputs as portable-device dependent, and both are end-of-life products. Physically, the Radeon Pro 450 is an MXM module with a 35 W TDP, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile is an integrated GPU package with a 45 W TDP and no power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile. It scored 52998 in Geekbench OpenCL against 9002 for the Radeon Pro 450, an 83 percent advantage.

Q: How much more compute throughput does the RTX 3050 A Mobile have?

A: It delivers 4.813 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS FP32 for the Radeon Pro 450, roughly four to five times the raw shader throughput.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 450 support ray tracing?

A: No. It has no RT cores. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 14 RT cores and 56 tensor cores.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile, with 192.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6, versus 81.28 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on the Radeon Pro 450.

Q: Which has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Radeon Pro 450, at 10804 versus 8746, but the two averages come from different test suites, so the overlapping OpenCL result is the better comparison.

Q: Are both products still in production?

A: No. Both are recorded as end-of-life.

Specification Differences

• Chip and architecture: Baffin on GCN 4.0 (AMD) versus GA106 on Ampere (NVIDIA)
• Process and foundry: 14 nm at GlobalFoundries versus 8 nm at Samsung
• Transistors and die: 3,000 million on 123 mm² (24.4M/mm²) versus 12,000 million on 276 mm² (43.5M/mm²)
• Shading units, TMUs, ROPs: 640 / 40 / 16 versus 1792 / 56 / 32
• RT and tensor cores: none versus 14 RT cores and 56 tensor cores
• Memory: 2 GB GDDR5 at 81.28 GB/s versus 4 GB GDDR6 at 192.0 GB/s, both on a 128-bit bus
• FP32: 1,024.0 GFLOPS versus 4.813 TFLOPS
• Pixel and texture rates: 12.80 GPixel/s and 32.00 GTexel/s versus 42.98 GPixel/s and 75.21 GTexel/s
• Clocks: the Radeon Pro 450 lists memory at 5.1 Gbps effective with no recorded base or boost; the RTX 3050 A Mobile lists a 1065 MHz base, 1343 MHz boost, and 12 Gbps effective memory
• TDP and form factor: 35 W MXM module versus 45 W IGP with no power connectors
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• API support: DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3 versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4
• Release timing: 2016 for the Radeon Pro 450 versus the end of 2023 for the RTX 3050 A Mobile
• Series lineage: Radeon Pro Mac 400 Series versus GeForce 30 Mobile, which succeeded GeForce 20 Mobile

The Verdict

The data points in one direction for performance. The RTX 3050 A Mobile wins the only recorded head-to-head test by 83 percent, holds a roughly four-to-five-fold FP32 throughput advantage, doubles the memory capacity, and offers 2.4 times the bandwidth. It also brings RT cores, tensor cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and Vulkan 1.4, none of which the Radeon Pro 450 can match. For any compute or modern-graphics workload, the recorded results favor the NVIDIA part decisively.

The counterargument from the database is narrower but real: the Radeon Pro 450 posts the higher average benchmark score (10804 versus 8746) and the higher percentile placement (49 versus 44), measured across its own test mix including Geekbench Metal, where it scored 12893. Its rival set is also arguably stronger, sitting within two percent of cards like the Quadro K2200 and the GeForce MX350. And it does so at a 35 W TDP rather than 45 W. Neither product has a recorded launch MSRP, and both are end-of-life, so this comparison is retrospective rather than a purchase decision between new parts.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 A Mobile wins on: raw compute (52998 versus 9002 in Geekbench OpenCL, 4.813 TFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS FP32), memory capacity and bandwidth (4 GB GDDR6 at 192.0 GB/s versus 2 GB GDDR5 at 81.28 GB/s), fill rates (42.98 versus 12.80 GPixel/s, 75.21 versus 32.00 GTexel/s), hardware ray tracing and tensor operations (14 and 56 cores respectively versus none), modern API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4), and newer platform connectivity (PCIe 4.0 x8).

The Radeon Pro 450 wins on: average benchmark score within its recorded test suite (10804 versus 8746), database percentile placement (49 versus 44), Geekbench Metal performance (12893, a test the NVIDIA part does not record), lower TDP (35 W versus 45 W), and a smaller physical footprint on silicon (123 mm² versus 276 mm², with a quarter of the transistor count). Its competitive positioning against cards like the GeForce MX350 and Quadro K2200 shows it held its own within its generation, even though the one direct measurement against the much newer NVIDIA part ends in a landslide.