NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB has an average benchmark score of 2329, while the Rubin GPU has a recorded average benchmark score of 0, as it has no individual benchmark entries in the database.

Q: What is the difference in transistor count between the two chips?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB uses 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the Rubin GPU uses 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Rubin GPU has a boost clock of 2267 MHz, which is significantly higher than the RTX 3050 6 GB's boost clock of 1470 MHz.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 168.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are there any benchmark results for the Rubin GPU in the database?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark entries for the Rubin GPU. Its percentile versus all GPUs is listed at 50, but its average benchmark score is 0.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB is listed as end-of-life, while the Rubin GPU is listed as active.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is one-sided: the RTX 3050 6 GB has eight recorded benchmark scores, while the Rubin GPU has none. The RTX 3050 6 GB shows wins across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 workloads, plus compute and 2D tests. Its best result is the Passmark G3D score of 10738, followed by the Passmark GPU Compute score of 5192. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test returns 1515, and the Passmark DirectX 9 score is 124.

The Rubin GPU cannot be evaluated for wins based on measured results, as no benchmark scores exist for it in the database. Its win condition is entirely theoretical, derived from its hardware specifications rather than recorded performance. The data indicates the Rubin GPU is designed for a completely different workload class, one where rasterization benchmarks like Passmark are not applicable, given its lack of display outputs and server-oriented design.

For users focused on existing consumer benchmarks, the RTX 3050 6 GB is the only option with measured data. For users targeting server-scale compute, the Rubin GPU's specifications suggest it would dominate, but the database cannot confirm this with scores. The wins each way are therefore asymmetric: one has confirmed results, the other has only potential.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The RTX 3050 6 GB uses the Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, built on Samsung's 8 nm process. The Rubin GPU uses the Rubin architecture with the GR100 chip, built on TSMC's 3 nm process. The process node difference is substantial, with the Rubin GPU using a significantly more advanced manufacturing technology.

The transistor density reflects this: the RTX 3050 6 GB has 43.5M transistors per mm², while the Rubin GPU has 230.8M transistors per mm². The Rubin GPU also has a much larger die at 1456 mm² versus 200 mm², and a far higher total transistor count at 336,000 million versus 8,700 million.

Feature sets diverge sharply. The RTX 3050 6 GB supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores. The Rubin GPU lists no API support in the database (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all marked N/A), and its ray tracing core count is not specified. It does include 896 tensor cores. The RTX 3050 6 GB has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the Rubin GPU has no display outputs at all.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The RTX 3050 6 GB uses GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus, while the Rubin GPU uses HBM4 with a 16384-bit bus. The Rubin GPU's memory bandwidth of 22.1 TB/s is orders of magnitude higher than the RTX 3050 6 GB's 168.0 GB/s. The Rubin GPU's FP16 throughput is double its FP32 (260.0 TFLOPS versus 130.0 TFLOPS), indicating a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX 3050 6 GB has a 1:1 ratio at 6.774 TFLOPS for both.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two GPUs are extensive. The process node differs: 8 nm for the RTX 3050 6 GB versus 3 nm for the Rubin GPU. The foundry is Samsung for the former and TSMC for the latter. Transistor counts are 8,700 million versus 336,000 million, and die sizes are 200 mm² versus 1456 mm². Transistor density is 43.5M / mm² versus 230.8M / mm².

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The RTX 3050 6 GB has a higher base clock at 1042 MHz versus 700 MHz, but the Rubin GPU has a much higher boost clock at 2267 MHz versus 1470 MHz. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RTX 3050 6 GB versus 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the Rubin GPU.

Memory capacity is 6 GB versus 288 GB. Memory type is GDDR6 versus HBM4. Bus width is 96 bit versus 16384 bit. Bandwidth is 168.0 GB/s versus 22.1 TB/s. Shading units are 2304 versus 28672. Texture mapping units are 72 versus 896. Render output units are 32 versus 24. Tensor cores are 72 versus 896. The RTX 3050 6 GB has 18 ray tracing cores, while the Rubin GPU's ray tracing core count is not listed.

Pixel rates are similar: 47.04 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 105.8 GTexel/s versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 6.774 TFLOPS versus 130.0 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 6.774 TFLOPS versus 260.0 TFLOPS. TDP is 70 W versus 2300 W. The RTX 3050 6 GB is dual-slot with no power connectors; the Rubin GPU uses an SXM Module. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 2700 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 6.0 x16. The RTX 3050 6 GB has display outputs; the Rubin GPU has none. The RTX 3050 6 GB is 242 mm long and 112 mm tall; the Rubin GPU has no listed dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs. The headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty, and the wins count is 0 for both items. This means there is no direct comparative score to analyze between the RTX 3050 6 GB and the Rubin GPU.

The RTX 3050 6 GB has its own standalone benchmark results, which can be placed in context using its nearest rivals. Its average benchmark score of 2329 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M (2335, delta -0.3%), the NVIDIA Quadro P620 (2339, delta -0.4%), the Intel HD Graphics 510 (2305, delta 1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M (2363, delta -1.4%). The data shows the RTX 3050 6 GB sits within a tight cluster of older or lower-tier GPUs, with deltas ranging from -1.4% to 1%.

The Rubin GPU has no benchmark scores and no nearest rivals in the database. Its percentile versus all GPUs is listed at 50, which is higher than the RTX 3050 6 GB's percentile of 15. However, without actual scores, this percentile cannot be validated against measured results. The only quantitative comparison possible is through specifications, where the Rubin GPU shows massive advantages in shading units (28672 versus 2304), FP32 throughput (130.0 TFLOPS versus 6.774 TFLOPS), and memory bandwidth (22.1 TB/s versus 168.0 GB/s).

The RTX 3050 6 GB's individual scores show a pattern: Passmark G3D at 10738 is by far its strongest result, while Passmark DirectX 12 at 53 is its weakest. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1515 is modest. These results confirm the RTX 3050 6 GB is positioned at the low end of the performance spectrum, which aligns with its 15th percentile ranking.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on use case. The RTX 3050 6 GB is a consumer-oriented, end-of-life GPU with confirmed benchmark results. Its average score of 2329 places it within 1.5% of several older GPUs, and its 15th percentile ranking indicates it sits below most of the GPU population. It has a launch MSRP of 179 USD. It supports modern APIs, includes ray tracing and tensor cores, and provides display outputs for standard desktop use. Its 70 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for low-power systems.

The Rubin GPU is a server-focused, active product with no benchmark data. Its specifications point to an entirely different performance class: 336,000 million transistors, 28672 shading units, 896 tensor cores, 288 GB of HBM4 memory, and 130.0 TFLOPS FP32. Its 2300 W TDP and SXM Module form factor confirm it is not a desktop part. The lack of display outputs and API support in the database further indicates it is not meant for consumer workloads.

Users who need a working GPU for standard graphics tasks today should consider the RTX 3050 6 GB, as it has verified results and a known feature set. Users who need massive compute throughput for server or data center workloads would look to the Rubin GPU, but the database cannot confirm its performance with scores. The RTX 3050 6 GB wins on the basis of available evidence; the Rubin GPU wins on the basis of raw hardware potential. The data does not support a direct comparison, so the choice depends entirely on workload requirements.