AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile Comparison

The database pits two entry-level mobile GPUs against each other in this comparison: AMD's Radeon RX 6500M and NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile. Both are integrated-graphics-class laptop parts with 4 GB of GDDR6, both sit near the middle of the historical GPU field (48th and 44th percentiles respectively), and both are now end-of-life. On paper their raw FP32 output is nearly identical, 4.915 TFLOPS for the AMD part versus 4.813 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part, yet the recorded benchmarks tell a one-sided story: the RTX 3050 A Mobile wins all eight head-to-head tests, several by wide margins. The pages below walk through why.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile wins every single one of the eight head-to-head benchmarks in the database. Its margins range from 14.8% in PassMark DirectX 10 to 39.6% in PassMark GPU Compute. The closest contest is still a clear NVIDIA win.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 6500M has an average benchmark score of 10362, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile averages 8746. Note that these averages are computed over different test mixes for each card, since the RX 6500M additionally records a Geekbench Vulkan result of 43837. The head-to-head table, which uses only common tests, is the fair comparison, and there the RTX 3050 A leads across the board.

Q: Do they have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes. Both ship with 4 GB of GDDR6. However, the RTX 3050 A Mobile uses a 128-bit bus delivering 192.0 GB/s, while the RX 6500M is limited to a 64-bit bus and 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which is more power efficient?

A: By rated TDP, the RTX 3050 A Mobile draws 45 W against 50 W for the RX 6500M, and it delivers substantially higher benchmark scores doing so. The recorded data therefore favors the NVIDIA part in performance per watt.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are flagged as end-of-life in the database. The RX 6500M was released in January 2022, and the RTX 3050 A Mobile arrived at the end of December 2023.

Q: How do they compare to other GPUs?

A: Against the full database, the RX 6500M sits in the 48th percentile and the RTX 3050 A Mobile in the 44th percentile. The RX 6500M's average score lands within 1.1% of the AMD Radeon RX 550X and within 0.9% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A. The RTX 3050 A Mobile's average is essentially identical to the GeForce GTX 460 v2 (a 0% delta) and slightly below the Radeon Pro WX 5100 (a 1.3% gap).

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from opposing design philosophies. The RX 6500M is built on the Navi 24 chip using AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process. It is a small die by any measure: 107 mm² hosting 5,400 million transistors, which works out to a density of 50.5M transistors per mm². The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, fabbed by Samsung on an older 8 nm node. Its die is far larger at 276 mm² with 12,000 million transistors, though the coarser process yields a lower density of 43.5M per mm².

Clocking strategies diverge sharply. AMD pushes high frequencies: a 2000 MHz base, 2400 MHz boost, and a recorded game clock of 2191 MHz. NVIDIA takes the opposite approach with a 1065 MHz base and 1343 MHz boost. Memory also differs in speed as well as bus width: the RX 6500M's memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) while the RTX 3050 A Mobile runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), but the NVIDIA part's doubled bus width more than compensates, delivering 192.0 GB/s against 144.0 GB/s.

The functional unit counts reveal further differences. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has far more shading units, 1792 versus 1024, while the RX 6500M counters with more TMUs (64 versus 56). Both have 32 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware is close, 16 RT cores for AMD against 14 for NVIDIA. The decisive architectural gap is in matrix hardware: the RTX 3050 A Mobile includes 56 tensor cores, while the RX 6500M has none. This shows up directly in the compute benchmarks and in the FP16 figures, where the AMD part's 2:1 rate yields 9.830 TFLOPS versus NVIDIA's 1:1 rate of 4.813 TFLOPS. FP32 is nearly a wash: 4.915 TFLOPS for AMD versus 4.813 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Interface bandwidth is another differentiator. The RX 6500M connects over PCIe 4.0 x4, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile gets PCIe 4.0 x8, doubling host link bandwidth. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API support is identical.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head record is a clean sweep, eight wins for the RTX 3050 A Mobile and zero for the RX 6500M.

The NVIDIA card's biggest wins come in compute and legacy graphics. PassMark GPU Compute is the widest gap of the general compute tests: 4419 versus 2669, a 39.6% deficit for the AMD part. PassMark DirectX 9 shows a similar story, 152 versus 92, with the RX 6500M trailing by 39.5%. PassMark DirectX 12, the most modern graphics API tested, lands at 55 versus 34, a 38.2% gap. The headline PassMark G3D score, a broad 3D graphics aggregate, reads 11664 for the RTX 3050 A Mobile against 7531 for the RX 6500M, a 35.4% difference.

The remaining tests are still decisive even where the margins narrow. PassMark G2D (2D graphics) goes to NVIDIA 526 to 385, a 26.8% gap. Geekbench OpenCL favors the RTX 3050 A Mobile 52998 to 38586, 27.2% ahead. PassMark DirectX 11 is close to that at 94 versus 70, a 25.5% margin. The narrowest result is PassMark DirectX 10, where the RTX 3050 A Mobile's 61 beats the RX 6500M's 52 by 14.8%.

There is no test in the shared set where the RX 6500M comes out ahead. The only recorded result the NVIDIA card lacks is Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6500M scored 43837, and since there is no counterpart entry, no comparison can be drawn there. Judged strictly on shared measurements, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is between roughly 15% and 40% faster depending on workload, with the largest advantages appearing in compute and older DirectX paths.

Specification Differences

The fields where the two GPUs differ are as follows:

• Chip: Navi 24 (RX 6500M) versus GA106 (RTX 3050 A Mobile)
• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 versus Ampere
• Series: Radeon RX 6000 series versus GeForce 30-series
• Generation: Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) versus GeForce 30 Mobile
• Process node and foundry: TSMC 6 nm versus Samsung 8 nm
• Transistors: 5,400 million versus 12,000 million
• Die size: 107 mm² versus 276 mm²
• Transistor density: 50.5M/mm² versus 43.5M/mm²
• Clocks: 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost (AMD) versus 1065 MHz base and 1343 MHz boost (NVIDIA); the RX 6500M also records a 2191 MHz game clock, a figure NVIDIA's entry lacks
• Memory speed: 2250 MHz at 18 Gbps effective versus 1500 MHz at 12 Gbps effective
• Bus width and bandwidth: 64 bit / 144.0 GB/s versus 128 bit / 192.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 1024 versus 1792
• TMUs: 64 versus 56
• RT cores: 16 versus 14
• Tensor cores: none versus 56
• Pixel rate: 76.80 GPixel/s versus 42.98 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 153.6 GTexel/s versus 75.21 GTexel/s
• FP32: 4.915 TFLOPS versus 4.813 TFLOPS
• FP16: 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.813 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 50 W versus 45 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x4 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Predecessor: Polaris Mobile versus GeForce 20 Mobile
• Release date: January 2022 versus December 2023

Matching specifications: 4 GB GDDR6, 32 ROPs, IGP slot width, no power connectors, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, portable-device-dependent display outputs, and end-of-life status.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes this an easy call. If the choice is between these two GPUs, the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile wins every shared benchmark, by margins from 14.8% up to 39.6%, while also carrying the lower TDP at 45 W versus 50 W. It offers double the memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s), double the host link width (PCIe 4.0 x8 versus x4), and 56 tensor cores the AMD part simply does not have. Buyers running GPU compute workloads, OpenCL applications, or modern game engines should take the NVIDIA card without hesitation.

The case for the RX 6500M rests on narrower technical grounds. Its theoretical pixel and texture throughput are far higher (76.80 versus 42.98 GPixel/s, and 153.6 versus 75.21 GTexel/s), its FP16 rate doubles its FP32 rate, and its 6 nm TSMC die is much smaller and denser than the Samsung 8 nm GA106. None of these theoretical advantages translated into a single benchmark win in the shared test set, but the card also holds a higher database percentile (48 versus 44) on the strength of its differently-weighted average score of 10362. In practice, the data supports choosing the RTX 3050 A Mobile in essentially every scenario where both are options; the RX 6500M's appeal is limited to situations where its specific silicon characteristics matter more than measured performance.

Where Each One Wins

RTX 3050 A Mobile wins:

• GPU compute. PassMark GPU Compute at 4419 versus 2669 (39.6% ahead), backed by 56 tensor cores and a Geekbench OpenCL lead of 52998 to 38586.
• Modern gaming. PassMark DirectX 12 at 55 versus 34 (38.2% ahead) and the G3D aggregate at 11664 versus 7531 (35.4% ahead), helped by 1792 shading units and 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth.
• Legacy DirectX titles. DirectX 9 at 152 versus 92 and DirectX 11 at 94 versus 70, gaps of 39.5% and 25.5%.
• General desktop graphics. PassMark G2D at 526 versus 385, a 26.8% margin.
• Efficiency-oriented designs. A lower 45 W TDP while delivering all of the above.

RX 6500M wins:

• Theoretical fill rate. 76.80 GPixel/s versus 42.98 and 153.6 GTexel/s versus 75.21, advantages that did not convert into benchmark wins in the recorded data.
• Half-precision throughput on paper. 9.830 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 rate, versus 4.813 TFLOPS at 1:1 for NVIDIA.
• Die economics. A 107 mm² die at 50.5M transistors per mm² on TSMC 6 nm, a far more compact implementation than the 276 mm² Samsung 8 nm GA106.
• Slightly higher database standing. The 48th percentile versus the 44th, and an average benchmark score of 10362 versus 8746, driven by its extra recorded results rather than head-to-head performance.

The overall split is lopsided: the RTX 3050 A Mobile owns every measured workload category, and the RX 6500M's wins are confined to specification-sheet metrics that the benchmarks do not reward.