AMD Radeon Vega 11 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM and AMD Radeon Vega 11 represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics processing: a dedicated add-in board versus an integrated graphics processor. The benchmark data reveals a stark performance chasm, with the RTX 3050 OEM winning both head-to-head tests by margins exceeding 350%, yet the Vega 11 remains a relevant option in its specific niche due to its minimal power footprint. This analysis interprets the available metrics to clarify where each component stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM across the two shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740 against the Vega 11's 13,392, resulting in a 353.6% advantage. This indicates that the dedicated GPU delivers more than four times the raw compute throughput in this workload, a gap that reflects the vast difference in shading units, memory bandwidth, and dedicated resources.

Geekbench Vulkan shows an even wider margin, with the RTX 3050 OEM posting 57,103 versus the Vega 11's 12,273, a 365.3% lead. The Vulkan API's lower overhead tends to favor architectures with dedicated hardware resources, and the data confirms that the Ampere-based GPU leverages this advantage effectively. Notably, the Vega 11 does not appear in any other shared benchmark tests within the data, meaning the head-to-head is limited to these two API-level workloads.

The RTX 3050 OEM also holds a commanding lead in average benchmark score, at 15,199 versus the Vega 11's 14,352. This 5.9% aggregate difference is smaller than the head-to-head margins because the average includes tests where the Vega 11's integrated nature may be less penalized. However, the direct comparisons are unambiguous: the RTX 3050 OEM is categorically faster in every shared metric, with margins that dwarf the 0.2% to 0.6% differences seen among its nearest rivals.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two parts explains the performance disparity. The RTX 3050 OEM is built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture using an 8 nm Samsung process, packing 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the Vega 11 uses AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture on a 12 nm GlobalFoundries process, with 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, giving a density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The newer node and larger transistor budget provide the RTX 3050 OEM with a substantial raw resource advantage.

The shading unit count is starkly different: the RTX 3050 OEM has 2,304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Vega 11 has only 704 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 56.16 GPixel/s and texture rate of 126.4 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part, versus 11.20 GPixel/s and 61.60 GTexel/s for the AMD part. The RTX 3050 OEM also features 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores, which are completely absent from the Vega 11, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads that the Vega 11 cannot perform.

Memory configuration is another critical divergence. The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 11 uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," meaning performance scales with the host system's RAM. The clock speeds also differ: the RTX 3050 OEM runs at a 1515 MHz base and 1755 MHz boost, while the Vega 11 has a 300 MHz base and 1400 MHz boost. The RTX 3050 OEM's FP32 throughput is 8.087 TFLOPS, while the Vega 11 manages 1.971 TFLOPS — a 4.1x difference that aligns with the benchmark margins.

The Verdict

The data points to an unambiguous winner for dedicated graphics performance: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score, and offers features like ray tracing and tensor cores that the Vega 11 simply lacks. Its 57th percentile ranking among all GPUs, versus the Vega 11's 56th, places both in a similar overall standing, but the RTX 3050 OEM achieves this with far more headroom and capability.

However, the verdict is not purely about raw speed. The Vega 11's 15 W TDP versus the RTX 3050 OEM's 130 W TDP is a decisive factor for certain use cases. The Vega 11 requires no power connectors and is an IGP, meaning it occupies no expansion slot and draws power directly from the motherboard. This makes it suitable for compact, low-power systems where the RTX 3050 OEM's dual-slot design, 1x 8-pin connector, and 300 W suggested PSU would be impractical.

For users who need maximum frame rates, dedicated VRAM, or modern API support, the RTX 3050 OEM is the clear choice. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support and Vulkan 1.4 outperform the Vega 11's DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. But for users building an ultra-low-power HTPC or office machine where gaming is secondary, the Vega 11's integrated nature and negligible power draw are compelling. The data does not support the Vega 11 as a gaming alternative, but it does validate its existence as a low-power compute solution.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740 versus the Vega 11's 13,392, which is a 353.6% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Vega 11 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Vega 11 has no RT cores, while the RTX 3050 OEM has 18 RT cores dedicated to ray tracing workloads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has a 130 W TDP and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector with a 300 W suggested PSU, while the Vega 11 has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has 224.0 GB/s from its 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The Vega 11 uses system-shared memory with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent."

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has an average benchmark score of 15,199, while the Vega 11 averages 14,352. This puts the RTX 3050 OEM at the 57th percentile and the Vega 11 at the 56th percentile.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Vega 11 wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the Vega 11 loses both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests. It does not win any shared comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 OEM wins in every scenario that demands raw graphics throughput. This includes gaming at high resolutions, content creation with GPU acceleration, and any workload utilizing DirectX 12 Ultimate features like ray tracing. Its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory ensures textures and data are readily accessible, avoiding the performance penalties of shared memory. The RT and tensor cores also make it viable for emerging AI-assisted rendering and compute tasks, areas where the Vega 11 has no hardware support whatsoever.

The Vega 11 wins in scenarios where power efficiency and physical footprint are paramount. At 15 W, it consumes a fraction of the RTX 3050 OEM's 130 W, making it ideal for always-on systems, thin clients, or builds without a dedicated PSU headroom. As an IGP, it requires no expansion slot, no power connectors, and produces minimal heat, enabling silent, compact system designs. Its FP16 throughput of 3.942 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is actually double its FP32 rate, which could provide a relative advantage in specific half-precision compute workloads, though this is not reflected in the shared benchmarks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM | AMD Radeon Vega 11 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 12,000 million | 4,940 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 210 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1515 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1755 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 704 |

| TMUs | 72 | 44 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| RT Cores | 18 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 72 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 56.16 GPixel/s | 11.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 126.4 GTexel/s | 61.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 8.087 TFLOPS | 1.971 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.087 TFLOPS (1:1) | 3.942 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 130 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | IGP |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2019-09-29 |