NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains recorded scores for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB across several DirectX and compute workloads, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 has no individual benchmark entries in the current dataset. This makes a direct per-test comparison impossible; however, aggregate statistics and architectural measurements provide a basis for analysis.

The RTX 3050 6 GB achieves an average benchmark score of 2329 across all recorded tests. This places it in the 15th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, according to the recorded data, are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M with an average score of 2335 (a delta of -0.3%), the NVIDIA Quadro P620 at 2339 (-0.4%), the Intel HD Graphics 510 at 2305 (+1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M at 2363 (-1.4%). The deltas are all within roughly 1.5%, indicating that the RTX 3050 6 GB sits in a tightly clustered performance band among these older or lower-tier parts.

The RTX 4060 AD106, by contrast, holds a 50th percentile ranking across all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero due to missing benchmark entries. The percentile difference is substantial: the RTX 4060 AD106 sits at the median of the entire GPU population, while the RTX 3050 6 GB sits far below that mark. The absence of direct scores for the RTX 4060 AD106 means the database cannot produce head-to-head test results, but the percentile gap is a strong indicator of relative standing.

In the RTX 3050 6 GB's own test suite, the highest recorded score is in Passmark G3D at 10738, followed by Passmark GPU Compute at 5192. The DirectX-specific tests show lower figures: Passmark DirectX 9 at 124, DirectX 11 at 72, DirectX 10 at 59, and DirectX 12 at 53. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test records a score of 1515. These numbers reveal a pattern where the card performs far better in compute and general 3D workloads than in older DirectX API tests, which is typical for a modern architecture prioritizing newer API paths.

The RTX 4060 AD106 carries no such individual scores, so its wins cannot be enumerated from direct measurements. Instead, the data shows its percentile rank of 50 versus the RTX 3050 6 GB's 15, a gap of 35 percentile points. This is the single most informative comparison available in the dataset. The RTX 4060 AD106 also has no nearest rivals listed, which further limits the analysis to aggregate positioning.

The RTX 3050 6 GB's average score of 2329 is nearly identical to its closest rivals, with the GT 640M at 2335 and the Quadro P620 at 2339. The deltas are -0.3% and -0.4%, respectively, meaning the RTX 3050 6 GB trails those two cards by a hair in average performance. Against the Intel HD Graphics 510, it leads by 1%, and against the GT 550M it trails by 1.4%. These margins are negligible in practical terms, but they define the card's position in the database hierarchy.

For the RTX 4060 AD106, the lack of benchmark data means no per-test wins can be cited. The database records zero wins for both cards in head-to-head comparisons, simply because no paired test results exist. The analysis must therefore rely on the percentile and architectural data to draw conclusions.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 holds a significantly higher position in the database's overall GPU ranking. Its 50th percentile placement versus the RTX 3050 6 GB's 15th percentile shows a clear separation in aggregate performance. The RTX 4060 AD106 also delivers over twice the FP32 compute throughput, with 15.11 TFLOPS versus 6.774 TFLOPS, and nearly double the pixel rate at 118.1 GPixel/s versus 47.04 GPixel/s. The texture rate follows the same pattern: 236.2 GTexel/s versus 105.8 GTexel/s.

The RTX 4060 AD106 uses a larger memory configuration of 8 GB compared to 6 GB, with a wider 128-bit bus versus 96-bit, and higher bandwidth at 272.0 GB/s versus 168.0 GB/s. Its boost clock of 2460 MHz versus 1470 MHz, and base clock of 1830 MHz versus 1042 MHz, further reinforce the performance gap. The shading units, texture mapping units, and ROPs are all higher on the RTX 4060 AD106: 3072 versus 2304, 96 versus 72, and 48 versus 32, respectively.

The RTX 4060 AD106 also carries more ray tracing cores (24 versus 18) and tensor cores (96 versus 72). These architectural advantages are reflected in its higher percentile ranking. The RTX 3050 6 GB, meanwhile, has a lower power draw of 70 W versus 115 W, and a lower suggested PSU of 250 W versus 300 W. It also lacks any power connector, while the RTX 4060 AD106 uses a 12-pin connector.

For users prioritizing raw performance, the RTX 4060 AD106 is the clear choice based on the data. For users with strict power or connector constraints, the RTX 3050 6 GB offers a lower-power alternative, but the benchmark data does not support it as a performance competitor. The RTX 4060 AD106 wins on every measurable compute and memory metric recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB has an average benchmark score of 2329. The RTX 4060 AD106 has an average benchmark score of 0 in the database due to missing benchmark entries, so no direct comparison can be made from that field.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall GPU ranking?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 sits in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 3050 6 GB sits in the 15th percentile. This 35-point gap indicates the RTX 4060 AD106 is positioned much higher in the database's performance hierarchy.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the RTX 3050 6 GB?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M (average score 2335, delta -0.3%), the NVIDIA Quadro P620 (2339, -0.4%), the Intel HD Graphics 510 (2305, +1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M (2363, -1.4%).

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 has 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the RTX 3050 6 GB has 168.0 GB/s. The RTX 4060 AD106 also has a larger 8 GB memory pool versus 6 GB.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance of each card?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS, while the RTX 3050 6 GB delivers 6.774 TFLOPS. The RTX 4060 AD106 is more than double the RTX 3050 6 GB in this metric.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, as recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The RTX 3050 6 GB uses the GA107 chip, while the RTX 4060 AD106 uses the AD106 chip. The RTX 3050 6 GB has 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the RTX 4060 AD106 has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Ray tracing cores are 18 versus 24, and tensor cores are 72 versus 96.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the RTX 3050 6 GB runs at a base of 1042 MHz and boosts to 1470 MHz, while the RTX 4060 AD106 runs at 1830 MHz base and 2460 MHz boost. Memory clocks are also different: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on the RTX 3050 6 GB versus 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective) on the RTX 4060 AD106.

Memory configuration shows the RTX 3050 6 GB with 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 168.0 GB/s. The RTX 4060 AD106 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 272.0 GB/s. Pixel rates are 47.04 GPixel/s versus 118.1 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 105.8 GTexel/s versus 236.2 GTexel/s.

Power characteristics differ: the RTX 3050 6 GB has a TDP of 70 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, with no power connectors. The RTX 4060 AD106 has a TDP of 115 W, a suggested PSU of 300 W, and uses a 12-pin connector. Both are dual-slot cards. The RTX 3050 6 GB has recorded dimensions of 242 mm length and 112 mm height; the RTX 4060 AD106 has no dimensions recorded.

Bus interfaces are identical at PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are also identical: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both cards use 8 nm (Samsung) and 5 nm (TSMC) process nodes, respectively, with transistor counts of 8,700 million and 22,900 million, and die sizes of 200 mm² and 188 mm².

Architecture Differences

The RTX 3050 6 GB is based on the Ampere architecture from the GeForce 30 generation, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The RTX 4060 AD106 is based on the Ada Lovelace architecture from the GeForce 40 generation, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 8 nm versus 5 nm, which affects transistor density. The RTX 3050 6 GB has a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm², while the RTX 4060 AD106 reaches 121.8 million per mm². Despite the RTX 4060 AD106 having a smaller die (188 mm² versus 200 mm²), it packs more than two and a half times the transistors: 22,900 million versus 8,700 million.

The RTX 3050 6 GB uses 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores. The RTX 4060 AD106 uses 24 and 96, respectively. The FP32 and FP16 compute rates are identical within each card (1:1 ratio), but the absolute values are much higher on the RTX 4060 AD106: 15.11 TFLOPS versus 6.774 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16.

Both cards support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status for both is end-of-life. The release dates differ: the RTX 3050 6 GB was released on February 1, 2024, and the RTX 4060 AD106 on March 31, 2024. The RTX 3050 6 GB's predecessor is GeForce 20 and successor is GeForce 40; the RTX 4060 AD106's predecessor is GeForce 30 and successor is GeForce 50.

The RTX 3050 6 GB has a launch MSRP of 179 USD, stated once here as recorded. The RTX 4060 AD106 has no launch MSRP in the database. The RTX 3050 6 GB's power connector is listed as none, while the RTX 4060 AD106 uses a single 12-pin connector. The slot width for both is dual-slot.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4060 AD106 wins on every recorded performance metric. Its FP32 compute of 15.11 TFLOPS is more than double the RTX 3050 6 GB's 6.774 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 118.1 GPixel/s is roughly 2.5 times the RTX 3050 6 GB's 47.04 GPixel/s. The texture rate of 236.2 GTexel/s versus 105.8 GTexel/s gives it a similar advantage. Memory bandwidth of 272.0 GB/s versus 168.0 GB/s provides a 62% lead. The larger 8 GB memory pool versus 6 GB also favors the RTX 4060 AD106 for workloads with higher memory demands.

The RTX 4060 AD106's higher boost clock of 2460 MHz versus 1470 MHz, and its larger count of shading units (3072 versus 2304), TMUs (96 versus 72), and ROPs (48 versus 32), all contribute to its dominance. The additional ray tracing cores (24 versus 18) and tensor cores (96 versus 72) suggest better performance in ray-traced and AI-accelerated workloads, though no direct benchmark confirms this in the dataset.

The RTX 3050 6 GB wins only on power-related metrics. Its TDP of 70 W is lower than the RTX 4060 AD106's 115 W, and its suggested PSU of 250 W is lower than 300 W. It also requires no power connector, whereas the RTX 4060 AD106 requires a 12-pin connector. For systems with limited power delivery or no available PCIe power cables, the RTX 3050 6 GB is the more compatible option. Its recorded dimensions (242 mm length, 112 mm height) may also fit smaller cases, though the RTX 4060 AD106 has no dimensions recorded for comparison.

The RTX 3050 6 GB's average benchmark score of 2329 places it alongside older parts like the GT 640M and Quadro P620, with deltas under 1.5%. This indicates it delivers performance in a similar class to those cards, not in the class of the RTX 4060 AD106, which sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. The RTX 4060 AD106 is the clear winner for any performance-oriented use case, while the RTX 3050 6 GB is the choice only when power constraints or connector availability are the deciding factors.