AMD Radeon RX 7700 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM Comparison

# AMD Radeon RX 7700 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

This is a lopsided matchup. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the data, and the margins are massive. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is an end-of-life board from the GeForce 30 generation, while the RX 7700 is an active RDNA 3.0 product. If you are choosing between these two, the data points one direction clearly, but the details matter for specific use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 7700 sweeps all eight recorded tests. The smallest win is in PassMark G2D at 23.9% ahead, which measures 2D graphics performance; the RX 7700 scores 1206 versus 973 for the RTX 3050 OEM. That is a solid margin, but it is the closest the NVIDIA card gets in any test.

The biggest single-test gap appears in PassMark DirectX 11, where the RX 7700 scores 186 against 86 for the RTX 3050 OEM — a 116.3% advantage. That is more than double the performance in a legacy DirectX 11 workload. The next largest margin is in PassMark DirectX 9 at 90.5% (261 vs 137), followed closely by PassMark GPU Compute at 89.7% (10963 vs 5779). These are not incremental differences; the RX 7700 is in a different performance tier.

In modern API tests, the story repeats. PassMark DirectX 12 shows the RX 7700 at 96 versus 58 for the RTX 3050 OEM, a 65.5% lead. The Geekbench OpenCL result is 106028 for AMD versus 60740 for NVIDIA, a 74.6% advantage. The flagship gaming metric, PassMark G3D, has the RX 7700 at 20974 and the RTX 3050 OEM at 11857 — a 76.9% lead. DirectX 10 is the narrowest 3D gap at 50.8% (92 vs 61), but it is still a dominant win.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The RX 7700 averages 15852, while the RTX 3050 OEM averages 15199. That is only a 4.3% difference in aggregate scores, but the individual test deltas are far larger because the averages pull in different workload mixes. The percentile rankings are nearly identical — 58th for AMD, 57th for NVIDIA — which reflects how the RX 7700 sits slightly above the middle of the GPU distribution while the RTX 3050 OEM sits just below it.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different design philosophies. The RX 7700 uses the Navi 32 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm². The RTX 3050 OEM uses the GA106 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die — a density of 43.5 million per mm². The RX 7700 has more than twice the transistor count on a die that is only 25% larger.

Clock speeds favor AMD heavily. The RX 7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz and boosts to 2459 MHz, with a game clock of 2041 MHz. The RTX 3050 OEM runs at 1515 MHz base and 1755 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ too: the RX 7700 runs GDDR6 at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective), while the RTX 3050 OEM runs GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystem is a major differentiator. The RX 7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s. That is nearly three times the memory bandwidth on the AMD card, which directly impacts high-resolution and texture-heavy workloads.

Compute resources also differ substantially. The RX 7700 has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It includes 40 ray tracing cores. The RTX 3050 OEM has 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores. The tensor cores are the one feature NVIDIA has that AMD lacks — the RX 7700 has no tensor core equivalent in this data.

Theoretical throughput numbers reflect the resource gap. The RX 7700 achieves 25.18 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16, with a pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s and texture rate of 393.4 GTexel/s. The RTX 3050 OEM reaches 8.087 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16, with 56.16 GPixel/s and 126.4 GTexel/s. The RX 7700 has roughly three times the raw compute throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7700 wins in every benchmark category recorded. For gamers, the PassMark DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 scores are the most relevant, and AMD leads by 116.3% and 65.5% respectively. The 16 GB memory capacity and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth make it the better choice for modern games with large texture sets or for playing at higher resolutions. The 40 ray tracing cores give it a ray tracing capability that, while not directly benchmarked here, is present in the hardware.

The RX 7700 also dominates compute workloads. The PassMark GPU Compute score of 10963 versus 5779 is an 89.7% advantage. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 106028 versus 60740 shows a 74.6% lead in general-purpose GPU compute. If you run OpenCL workloads, the RX 7700 is the clear choice.

The RTX 3050 OEM has one unique advantage in the data: its 72 tensor cores. These are absent from the RX 7700 entirely. For workloads that rely on tensor core acceleration — such as certain AI inference or DLSS features — the NVIDIA card has dedicated hardware that AMD cannot match. The data does not include a direct tensor core benchmark, but the hardware difference is real. The RTX 3050 OEM also has a lower power draw at 130 W versus 200 W, and a lower suggested PSU rating of 300 W versus 550 W, which makes it easier to slot into an existing system without a PSU upgrade.

FAQ

Q: Is the RX 7700 faster than the RTX 3050 OEM in gaming benchmarks?

A: Yes. The RX 7700 wins PassMark DirectX 12 by 65.5% (96 vs 58) and DirectX 11 by 116.3% (186 vs 86). The PassMark G3D score is 20974 versus 11857, a 76.9% lead.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 7700 has 624.1 GB/s from its 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The RTX 3050 OEM has 224.0 GB/s from 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the RTX 3050 OEM have any feature the RX 7700 lacks?

A: Yes, it has 72 tensor cores. The RX 7700 has no tensor core equivalent in the data. The RTX 3050 OEM also draws less power at 130 W versus 200 W.

Q: Which card is better for compute workloads?

A: The RX 7700 wins PassMark GPU Compute by 89.7% (10963 vs 5779) and Geekbench OpenCL by 74.6% (106028 vs 60740).

Q: What are the production statuses of these cards?

A: The RX 7700 is listed as Active, while the RTX 3050 OEM is End-of-life.

Q: How do these cards compare in 2D performance?

A: The RX 7700 scores 1206 in PassMark G2D versus 973 for the RTX 3050 OEM, a 23.9% lead. This is the closest margin of any test.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The RX 7700 wins all eight head-to-head benchmarks, with margins ranging from 23.9% to 116.3%. It has more memory, more bandwidth, higher clocks, and roughly three times the raw FP32 throughput. For gaming, compute, or general GPU tasks, the RX 7700 is the superior performer in every measured category.

The RTX 3050 OEM is only the right pick if you specifically need tensor cores for AI-accelerated workloads, or if the 130 W power draw and 300 W PSU requirement are hard constraints for your system. The RX 7700 needs a 550 W PSU and two 8-pin power connectors, while the RTX 3050 OEM needs a single 8-pin and a 300 W PSU. That lower power envelope is the only practical advantage the NVIDIA card holds.

The RX 7700 is also the only one of the two still in active production. The RTX 3050 OEM is end-of-life, which means availability will shrink over time. If you are building a new system today, the RX 7700 delivers more performance, more memory, and a longer product lifespan. The RTX 3050 OEM only makes sense in niche scenarios where tensor core support and low power draw outweigh a 65-116% performance deficit.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7700 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 28,100 million | 12,000 million |

| Die Size | 346 mm² | 276 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1900 MHz | 1515 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2459 MHz | 1755 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB GDDR6 | 8 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 624.1 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 160 | 72 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 40 | 18 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 72 |

| FP32 Performance | 25.18 TFLOPS | 8.087 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 236.1 GPixel/s | 56.16 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 393.4 GTexel/s | 126.4 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 200 W | 130 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 242 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 135 mm (5.3 inches) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 50 mm (2 inches) | Not specified |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2025-09-17 | 2022-01-03 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 15852 | 15199 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 58th | 57th |