AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive outcome in the direct comparisons between these two mobile GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile scores 50,038, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 manages 26,679. That is a delta of 87.6% in favor of the NVIDIA part, meaning the RTX 3050 Mobile delivers nearly double the compute performance in this workload.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story. The RTX 3050 Mobile posts 49,051 versus 26,410 for the Radeon Pro Vega 20, a 85.7% advantage. This is not a close contest; the NVIDIA GPU wins both head-to-head benchmarks decisively. The database records 2 wins for the RTX 3050 Mobile and 0 for the AMD part.

Looking at the broader average benchmark score, the RTX 3050 Mobile sits at 33,170, which places it in the 78th percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 averages 27,839, good for the 73rd percentile. The gap in average scores is roughly 5,331 points, which is substantial in real-world terms.

The nearest rivals for the RTX 3050 Mobile are telling. The NVIDIA T550 Mobile scores 33,161 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro 570 scores 33,207 (-0.1%), the NVIDIA P104-100 scores 32,982 (0.6%), and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile scores 32,849 (1%). This means the RTX 3050 Mobile is essentially neck-and-neck with those workstation-class parts, sitting right in the middle of that pack.

For the Radeon Pro Vega 20, its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7800M at 27,883 (-0.2%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X at 27,973 (-0.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 28,020 (-0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 at 27,565 (1%). The Vega 20 is right in that range, meaning it performs like a slightly older desktop flagship, though the RTX 3090 comparison is interesting given that card's much higher power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile uses the GA107 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 uses the Vega 12 chip based on GCN 5.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the AMD part.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The RTX 3050 Mobile has a base clock of 1065 MHz and a boost of 1343 MHz. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 starts lower at 815 MHz base but boosts to 1283 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at higher clocks, but the AMD chip has a different internal layout that compensates somewhat.

Memory configurations are a study in contrasts. The RTX 3050 Mobile uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with memory running at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a massive 1024-bit bus, with memory at 740 MHz (1480 Mbps effective) for 189.4 GB/s bandwidth. The bandwidth numbers are close, but the bus widths are wildly different: 128-bit versus 1024-bit.

Compute resources differ in structure. The RTX 3050 Mobile has 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It also includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, features the Vega 20 lacks entirely. The AMD part has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite fewer shaders, the Vega 20 has more TMUs, which affects texture-heavy workloads.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The RTX 3050 Mobile achieves 42.98 GPixel/s and 85.95 GTexel/s. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 hits 41.06 GPixel/s and 102.6 GTexel/s. The AMD GPU wins on texture rate, the NVIDIA wins on pixel rate, though both are close.

FP32 compute favors NVIDIA at 5.501 TFLOPS versus 3.284 TFLOPS for AMD. However, FP16 tells a different story: the RTX 3050 Mobile does 5.501 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Vega 20 does 6.569 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). This means the AMD part has an advantage in half-precision workloads, though the NVIDIA architecture's tensor cores may handle certain AI tasks differently.

Power and interface differences are stark. The RTX 3050 Mobile has a TDP of 45 W, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 draws 100 W. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x8, the AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both are integrated graphics (IGP) with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The NVIDIA card requires no power connectors, while the AMD card's connector situation is not listed.

API support differs. The RTX 3050 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA part has a more modern feature set.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile delivers 5.501 TFLOPS FP32, versus 3.284 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA scores 50,038 against 26,679, an 87.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro Vega 20 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, in FP16 compute. The Vega 20 achieves 6.569 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus 5.501 TFLOPS (1:1) for the RTX 3050 Mobile. It also has higher texture rate at 102.6 GTexel/s versus 85.95 GTexel/s.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: Both have 4 GB of memory. The RTX 3050 Mobile uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus for 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 20 uses HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus for 189.4 GB/s. The bandwidth is nearly identical despite the bus width difference.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 has no ray tracing or tensor core support listed in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile has a 45 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 has a 100 W TDP. Both are integrated graphics for portable devices.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega 20 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most users. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile wins both direct benchmark comparisons by margins of 85% or more. Its average benchmark score of 33,170 puts it in the 78th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 sits at 27,839 and the 73rd percentile. If you need general compute performance, ray tracing, or modern API support, the RTX 3050 Mobile is the obvious choice.

However, the Radeon Pro Vega 20 is not without merit. Its FP16 performance is superior at 6.569 TFLOPS, and its texture rate is higher. The 100 W TDP suggests it may be in systems with more robust cooling, though that also means higher power draw. For users whose workloads emphasize half-precision math or texture-heavy rendering, the Vega 20 could be competitive despite its lower overall scores.

The RTX 3050 Mobile is also more efficient in terms of performance per watt, given its 45 W TDP versus 100 W. The NVIDIA part achieves its higher scores while drawing less than half the power. For laptop buyers, this is a significant consideration.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | Not listed |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 1065 MHz | 815 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1343 MHz | 1283 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 1024 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 740 MHz (1480 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 189.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 64 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 16 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 64 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 42.98 GPixel/s | 41.06 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 85.95 GTexel/s | 102.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.501 TFLOPS | 3.284 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.501 TFLOPS (1:1) | 6.569 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 45 W | 100 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2021-05-10 | 2018-11-13 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 5.501 TFLOPS is 67% higher than the Vega 20's 3.284 TFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, the NVIDIA part has a commanding lead of 87.6% and 85.7%, respectively. This translates to faster general-purpose GPU computing, better gaming performance, and smoother operation in most graphics workloads.

The RTX 3050 Mobile also wins on architectural features. It has 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. The Vega 20 has no such dedicated hardware. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, making it more future-proof for modern games and applications.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 wins in a few specific areas. Its FP16 throughput of 6.569 TFLOPS exceeds the NVIDIA part's 5.501 TFLOPS, making it better suited for workloads that heavily use half-precision math. Its texture rate of 102.6 GTexel/s beats the RTX 3050 Mobile's 85.95 GTexel/s, which could benefit certain texture-heavy rendering tasks.

The Vega 20 also has a wider memory bus at 1024-bit versus 128-bit. While the bandwidth is nearly identical, the HBM2 implementation may have different latency characteristics that could favor certain access patterns. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides more lanes than the PCIe 4.0 x8 on the NVIDIA side, though PCIe 4.0's higher per-lane bandwidth offsets this.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. General compute, gaming, ray tracing, and modern API support point to the RTX 3050 Mobile. Specialized half-precision workloads or texture-heavy applications might justify the Vega 20, but the benchmark data shows the NVIDIA part is the stronger all-around performer. The RTX 3050 Mobile also does this while consuming 45 W versus 100 W, a major advantage in mobile systems where thermals and battery life matter.