NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two NVIDIA offerings into entirely different performance classes. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the decisive winner in every measurable category, delivering a Geekbench OpenCL score of 146,593 against the RTX 3050 A Mobile's 52,998, a 63.8% deficit for the mobile part. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile ranks at the 44th percentile.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the choice for compute-heavy workstation tasks, professional rendering, and any workload that demands high FP32 throughput, large memory capacity, and broad API support. Its 26.73 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 20 GB of GDDR6 memory, and 360.0 GB/s bandwidth place it firmly in professional workstation territory. The RTX 3050 A Mobile, by contrast, is an end-of-life mobile part from 2023 that delivers 4.813 TFLOPS FP32, 4 GB of GDDR6, and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. It targets lightweight mobile workloads where power draw (45 W versus 130 W) and integration as an IGP form factor matter more than raw output.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip based on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It integrates 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip based on Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. This part packs 35,800 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, achieving 121.8 million transistors per mm², nearly three times the density of the Ampere chip.

Core counts diverge sharply. The RTX 3050 A Mobile carries 1,792 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, 14 ray tracing cores, and 56 tensor cores. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation scales this up to 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical, but the execution resources behind those APIs are vastly different.

Clock behavior also separates them. The RTX 3050 A Mobile runs at a 1065 MHz base and 1343 MHz boost, while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation operates at 1500 MHz base and 2175 MHz boost. The Ada part's higher clocks compound its larger core count, producing the wide performance gap observed in the data.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark record, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins in every tested scenario. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 146,593 is roughly 2.77 times the RTX 3050 A Mobile's 52,998. The delta of 63.8% in favor of the Ada part reflects a fundamental difference in compute capability, not a marginal improvement.

The RTX 3050 A Mobile's strengths are structural rather than performance-based. Its 45 W TDP and IGP slot width make it suitable for compact, power-constrained mobile systems. It uses no power connectors, relying on the host platform for power delivery. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is narrower than the Ada part's PCIe 4.0 x16, but adequate for its bandwidth ceiling of 192.0 GB/s. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation, by contrast, requires a 130 W TDP, a single-slot form factor, a 16-pin power connector, and a suggested 300 W power supply. Its 245 mm length and 112 mm height make it a physical expansion card, not an integrated solution.

For software ecosystems, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation benefits from being an active production part with a successor (Blackwell PRO W), while the RTX 3050 A Mobile is end-of-life. The Ada part's predecessor was Workstation Ampere, while the mobile part's predecessor was GeForce 20 Mobile. These lineage differences point to different intended use cases: sustained professional workloads for the Ada part, general mobile graphics for the Ampere part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 135,218, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile has an average of 8,746. The Ada part outperforms the mobile part by a factor of over 15 in this aggregate measure.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 360.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 compute differences?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation delivers 26.73 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 4.813 TFLOPS for the RTX 3050 A Mobile. Both parts offer FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

Q: Which GPU has better ray tracing hardware?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 48 ray tracing cores, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile has 14. The Ada part also has 192 tensor cores versus 56 on the mobile part.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile is end-of-life, while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is active. The Ada part has a successor, Blackwell PRO W, while the mobile part does not list a successor.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile has a 45 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has a 130 W TDP, uses a single 16-pin connector, and has a suggested power supply of 300 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation scored 146,593 against the RTX 3050 A Mobile's 52,998, a delta of 63.8% in favor of the Ada part. This is the only directly comparable benchmark in the database, but it aligns with the broader pattern: the RTX 4000 Ada Generation also holds a 95th percentile rank across all GPUs, versus 44th for the mobile part.

The RTX 3050 A Mobile's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (average score 8,743, 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686, 0.7% delta), the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851, -1.2% delta), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863, -1.3% delta). These deltas show the mobile part clustering tightly with older or lower-tier discrete GPUs, all within roughly 1.3% of each other.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A10M (135,230, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396, -0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774, -0.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472, -0.9% delta). The Ada part sits within 0.9% of these professional workstation GPUs, indicating it competes at the top tier of workstation-class hardware.

The RTX 3050 A Mobile's individual benchmark scores reveal its profile: PassMark G3D at 11,664, PassMark G2D at 526, PassMark GPU Compute at 4,419, and DirectX scores of 61 (DX10), 94 (DX11), 55 (DX12), and 152 (DX9). These numbers show a part optimized for legacy and light workloads rather than modern compute demands. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's only other recorded benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan at 123,842, further confirms its compute strength across multiple API paths.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field. The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses AD104 on a 5 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts are 12,000 million versus 35,800 million, and die sizes are 276 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density is 43.5M per mm² versus 121.8M per mm².

Clock speeds: the mobile part runs at 1065 MHz base and 1343 MHz boost; the Ada part runs at 1500 MHz base and 2175 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the mobile part versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the Ada part. Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 20 GB, bus width 128-bit versus 160-bit, and bandwidth 192.0 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s.

Compute resources: shading units 1,792 versus 6,144, TMUs 56 versus 192, ROPs 32 versus 64, ray tracing cores 14 versus 48, tensor cores 56 versus 192. Pixel rate is 42.98 GPixel/s versus 139.2 GPixel/s, texture rate 75.21 GTexel/s versus 417.6 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 4.813 TFLOPS versus 26.73 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications: TDP is 45 W versus 130 W, slot width is IGP versus single-slot, power connectors are none versus 1x 16-pin, and suggested PSU is absent versus 300 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the mobile part versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a for the Ada part. The Ada part measures 245 mm in length and 112 mm in height; the mobile part has no listed dimensions. Release dates differ: the mobile part launched on 2023-12-31, the Ada part on 2023-08-08. The mobile part is end-of-life; the Ada part is active with a successor.