NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs NVIDIA H20

The comparison between these two NVIDIA offerings is a study in extreme divergence. The RTX 3050 6 GB is a compact, low-power consumer card built on the Ampere architecture, while the H20 is a massive server accelerator based on Hopper. The recorded data shows they occupy entirely different segments of the GPU landscape, with the H20 targeting compute workloads and the RTX 3050 focusing on conventional rendering.

FAQ

Q: What is the architectural generation difference between the two GPUs?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB uses the Ampere architecture on the GA107 chip, while the H20 uses the Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip. The H20 also belongs to a different generation classification, listed as "Server Hopper (Hxx)" compared to the consumer-oriented "GeForce 30" for the RTX 3050.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus with 168.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, which is roughly 24 times the memory capacity and significantly higher bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in compute capability for FP32 operations?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB delivers 6.774 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS. This represents a substantial advantage for the H20 in single-precision compute workloads.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB includes 18 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate. The H20 has no recorded RT cores and does not support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan according to the database, indicating it is not designed for graphics rendering.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB has a TDP of 70 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The H20 has a TDP of 500 W with a suggested PSU of 900 W.

Q: What benchmark data exists for each GPU?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB has eight recorded benchmark scores including 3DMark Steel Nomad, multiple Passmark tests, and a G3D score of 10738. The H20 has no recorded benchmarks in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 and no nearest rivals listed.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 3050 6 GB is built on the GA107 chip using Samsung's 8 nm process node. The die measures 200 mm² and contains 8,700 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². Its architecture is Ampere, which supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with version 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The card features 2304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, 18 RT cores, and 72 tensor cores.

The H20 uses the GH100 chip fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The die is substantially larger at 814 mm² and packs 80,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 98.3 million per mm². Its Hopper architecture is designed for server deployments, and the database shows no graphics API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores, but no RT cores are recorded.

Clock behavior differs notably between the two. The RTX 3050 6 GB runs at a base clock of 1042 MHz with a boost up to 1470 MHz. The H20 operates at substantially higher clocks, with a base of 1830 MHz and boost of 1980 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the RTX 3050 uses 1750 MHz GDDR6 rated at 14 Gbps effective, while the H20 uses 1313 MHz HBM3 rated at 5.3 Gbps effective.

The physical and electrical specifications further separate these products. The RTX 3050 6 GB is a dual-slot card measuring 242 mm in length and 112 mm in height, with no power connectors required. The H20 is an SXM module with a 500 W TDP and a suggested 900 W PSU. The RTX 3050 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and provides display outputs including one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a ports. The H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no display outputs, reflecting its compute-only purpose.

Production status also diverges: the RTX 3050 6 GB is listed as end-of-life while the H20 remains active. The RTX 3050's predecessor is the GeForce 20 series and its successor is the GeForce 40 series, while the H20's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these two GPUs. The RTX 3050 6 GB has recorded scores across multiple tests, while the H20 has no benchmark entries at all. This absence of comparative data reflects the fundamentally different market positions of the two products.

For the RTX 3050 6 GB, the recorded benchmarks show its rendering capabilities. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test produces a score of 1515. Passmark tests show DirectX 10 at 59, DirectX 11 at 72, DirectX 12 at 53, and DirectX 9 at 124. The G2D score is 882 and the G3D score is 10738, with a GPU compute score of 5192. These results place the card at the 15th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

The H20 has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits at the 50th percentile by classification, though with no test data supporting that position. Its nearest rival list is empty, meaning the database contains no comparable measurements for this accelerator. The RTX 3050 6 GB, by contrast, has four nearest rivals with average scores ranging from 2305 to 2363. The RTX 3050's average benchmark score of 2329 places it within 1.4% of these competitors, with deltas ranging from -1.4% against the GeForce GT 550M to +1% against the Intel HD Graphics 510.

The FP32 compute figures provide the clearest measurable comparison. The H20's 39.54 TFLOPS is roughly 5.8 times the RTX 3050's 6.774 TFLOPS. For FP16, the divergence is even more pronounced: the H20 delivers 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX 3050 achieves 6.774 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning the H20 provides approximately 11.7 times the half-precision throughput.

Texture and pixel rates further illustrate the gap. The H20's texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s is about 5.8 times the RTX 3050's 105.8 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are nearly identical, with the RTX 3050 at 47.04 GPixel/s and the H20 at 47.52 GPixel/s, a difference of roughly 1%.

The Verdict

The data indicates these are not competing products. The RTX 3050 6 GB is a consumer graphics card with display outputs, graphics API support, and a 70 W power envelope. It is designed for conventional rendering workloads, evidenced by its DirectX 12 Ultimate support and RT cores. The H20 is a server accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 500 W power envelope. Its Hopper architecture with 312 tensor cores and massive HBM3 memory points toward compute and AI workloads.

Benchmark results confirm the RTX 3050's role as an entry-level rendering solution. Its passmark G3D score of 10738 and 15th percentile ranking show it operates in the lower tier of graphics cards. The H20's absence from benchmark records makes direct performance comparison impossible, but its specifications indicate a different purpose entirely.

The production statuses reinforce this separation. The RTX 3050 is end-of-life, while the H20 is active. The RTX 3050 has a launch MSRP of 179 USD, though pricing considerations are outside the scope of this analysis. The H20 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Users requiring graphics output, DirectX support, or low power consumption would select the RTX 3050. Those needing high FP32 throughput, extensive memory capacity, or tensor core density for server deployments would choose the H20. The two cards never intersect in their intended use cases.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The RTX 3050 uses the GA107 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, while the H20 uses the GH100 chip on a 5 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts are 8,700 million versus 80,000 million, with die sizes of 200 mm² versus 814 mm².

Clock speeds show the H20 running higher: base clocks are 1042 MHz versus 1830 MHz, and boost clocks are 1470 MHz versus 1980 MHz. Memory specifications are entirely different: 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus versus 96 GB HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus. Bandwidth ranges from 168.0 GB/s to 4.03 TB/s.

Compute resources differ significantly. The RTX 3050 has 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 18 RT cores, and 72 tensor cores. The H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, no RT cores, and 312 tensor cores. FP32 performance is 6.774 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 6.774 TFLOPS versus 79.07 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications diverge: TDP is 70 W versus 500 W, with suggested PSUs of 250 W and 900 W respectively. The RTX 3050 is dual-slot with no power connectors, while the H20 is an SXM module. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs exist only on the RTX 3050.

API support is exclusive to the RTX 3050, which supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 has no API support recorded. Production status shows end-of-life versus active, and release dates are one day apart in early 2024.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 6 GB wins in any scenario requiring graphics output. Its HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs enable display connectivity. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support allows modern game rendering, and its 18 RT cores provide ray tracing capability. The 70 W TDP makes it suitable for systems with limited power delivery, and the absence of power connectors simplifies installation.

The H20 wins decisively in compute-intensive applications. Its 39.54 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 performance dwarf the RTX 3050's 6.774 TFLOPS in both precisions. The 96 GB HBM3 memory with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth provides capacity and throughput that the RTX 3050's 6 GB GDDR6 cannot approach. The 312 tensor cores give the H20 substantial matrix computation capability.

The pixel rates are nearly identical, with the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s marginally ahead of the RTX 3050's 47.04 GPixel/s, but this is irrelevant for a card without display outputs. The texture rate heavily favors the H20 at 617.8 GTexel/s versus 105.8 GTexel/s.

The RTX 3050's benchmark scores show its rendering strengths, with a G3D score of 10738 and a GPU compute score of 5192. These are meaningful for consumer workloads. The H20 has no recorded benchmarks, so its advantages must be inferred from specifications rather than measured results.

The transistor density also favors the H20 at 98.3 million per mm² versus 43.5 million per mm², indicating a more advanced manufacturing process. The H20's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides greater host bandwidth than the RTX 3050's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection.

For systems requiring server-grade compute with no graphics output, the H20 is the only viable option. For desktop systems needing rendering, display output, and modest power consumption, the RTX 3050 6 GB is the appropriate choice. The data shows no overlap in their optimal use cases.