NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear performance hierarchy between these two Ampere-based NVIDIA parts. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile wins 7 of the 8 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 secures only a single victory. The GeForce part holds a decisive aggregate advantage, with an average benchmark score of 8746 versus 6078 for the RTX A400. In percentile terms against all GPUs, the RTX 3050 A Mobile sits at the 44th percentile, notably above the RTX A400's 35th percentile.

The RTX 3050 A Mobile is the obvious choice for compute-heavy and 3D rendering workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 52998 more than doubles the RTX A400's 22844, a 132% margin. In the Passmark G3D test, the RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 11664 versus 5983, a 95% lead. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamentally higher throughput capacity. The RTX A400, conversely, wins only the Passmark G2D test, scoring 899 against 526, a 41.5% advantage. This suggests the RTX A400 is better suited for 2D display workloads and desktop composition tasks, but its utility ends there.

For a user prioritizing raw computational output, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is the superior part. For a user whose primary requirement is 2D graphics acceleration or multi-display output in a compact single-slot form factor, the RTX A400 offers a specific niche advantage. The benchmark data does not support any other conclusion.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Ampere architecture, the Samsung 8 nm process node, and identical transistor density at 43.5M per mm². The similarities end there. The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die. The RTX A400 uses the smaller GA107 chip with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. This die size difference translates directly into resource allocation: the RTX 3050 A Mobile fields 1792 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, 32 raster operation units, 14 RT cores, and 56 tensor cores. The RTX A400 is far leaner, with 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and 24 tensor cores.

Clock behavior also diverges. The RTX A400 runs at a base clock of 1417 MHz and boosts to 1762 MHz, whereas the RTX 3050 A Mobile runs at 1065 MHz base and 1343 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the RTX 3050 A Mobile achieves far higher fill rates: 42.98 GPixel/s pixel rate and 75.21 GTexel/s texture rate, compared to 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s for the RTX A400. The FP32 compute figures tell the same story: 4.813 TFLOPS for the RTX 3050 A Mobile versus 2.706 TFLOPS for the RTX A400. Both parts offer FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so the half-precision advantage mirrors the full-precision numbers.

Memory is another differentiator. Both use 4 GB of GDDR6, but the RTX 3050 A Mobile employs a 128-bit bus delivering 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX A400 uses a 64-bit bus delivering 96.00 GB/s. Memory clock is identical at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The thermal and power profiles differ modestly: the RTX 3050 A Mobile is rated at 45 W TDP with an IGP slot width and no power connectors, while the RTX A400 is rated at 50 W TDP, is single-slot, uses no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The RTX A400 also has a defined physical footprint of 163 mm length and 69 mm height, whereas the RTX 3050 A Mobile's dimensions are portable-device dependent. Display outputs further separate them: the RTX A400 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile's outputs are portable-device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile has an average benchmark score of 8746, versus 6078 for the NVIDIA RTX A400.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 52998, which is 132% higher than the RTX A400's 22844.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the RTX A400 outperforms the RTX 3050 A Mobile?

A: Yes, in the Passmark G2D test the RTX A400 scores 899 versus 526 for the RTX 3050 A Mobile, a 41.5% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same architecture and process node?

A: Yes, both are built on the Ampere architecture and use Samsung's 8 nm process node with a transistor density of 43.5M per mm².

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both have 4 GB of GDDR6, but the RTX 3050 A Mobile has a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX A400 has a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in percentile ranking?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile sits at the 44th percentile among all GPUs, while the RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two parts diverge across nearly every hardware specification. The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip, while the RTX A400 uses GA107. Transistor counts are 12,000 million versus 8,700 million, and die sizes are 276 mm² versus 200 mm². Shading units number 1792 on the RTX 3050 A Mobile versus 768 on the RTX A400. Texture mapping units are 56 versus 24, and raster operation units are 32 versus 16. RT cores count 14 against 6, and tensor cores count 56 against 24.

Clock speeds favor the RTX A400: base clock 1417 MHz versus 1065 MHz, boost clock 1762 MHz versus 1343 MHz. Memory clock is identical at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. Pixel rate is 42.98 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 75.21 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 compute are both 4.813 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS.

TDP is 45 W for the RTX 3050 A Mobile and 50 W for the RTX A400. Slot width is IGP versus single-slot. The suggested PSU for the RTX A400 is 250 W; the RTX 3050 A Mobile has no suggested PSU listed. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for both. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the RTX 3050 A Mobile and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the RTX A400. The RTX A400 has dimensions of 163 mm length and 69 mm height; the RTX 3050 A Mobile has none listed. Production status is end-of-life for the RTX 3050 A Mobile and active for the RTX A400. Release dates differ: the RTX 3050 A Mobile came in late 2023, the RTX A400 in mid-2024.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX 3050 A Mobile dominates the compute and 3D benchmark categories. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 52998 versus 22844, a 132% delta. This is the single largest percentage win in the comparison. Passmark DirectX 11 shows a 154.1% delta, with scores of 94 versus 37. Passmark DirectX 12 shows a 103.7% delta, with 55 versus 27. Passmark DirectX 10 shows a 90.6% delta, with 61 versus 32. Passmark DirectX 9 shows a 74.7% delta, with 152 versus 87. Passmark G3D shows a 95% delta, with 11664 versus 5983. Passmark GPU Compute shows a 72.8% delta, with 4419 versus 2557.

The RTX A400's sole victory comes in Passmark G2D, scoring 899 against 526, a 41.5% delta in its favor. This is a 2D graphics benchmark, distinct from the 3D and compute tests where the RTX 3050 A Mobile is dominant. The nature of the G2D test, which measures 2D rendering and desktop operations, explains the RTX A400's win despite its lower overall hardware resources.

The closest relative performance for the RTX 3050 A Mobile among its nearest rivals is the AMD Radeon R9 M265X, which trails by 1.2% in average score, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, which is 1.3% ahead. The RTX A400's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at parity, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 0.5% ahead, and the AMD Radeon 760M at 1% ahead. These rival deltas are small, indicating that both GPUs sit within a tightly clustered performance band relative to their immediate competitors.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 A Mobile wins across every 3D, compute, and legacy DirectX workload measured. Its 132% OpenCL lead indicates substantial compute throughput, likely driven by its 1792 shading units and 56 tensor cores. The 95% G3D lead confirms strong 3D rendering capability. The 154.1% DirectX 11 delta and 103.7% DirectX 12 delta show modern API workloads are heavily in its favor. Even older DirectX 9 and 10 tests show leads above 74%. For GPU compute tasks, the 72.8% lead in Passmark GPU Compute reinforces the pattern. This GPU is suited for workloads involving rendering, simulation, machine learning inference, or general-purpose GPGPU processing.

The RTX A400 wins only the Passmark G2D test, with a 41.5% margin. This indicates superior 2D acceleration, likely benefiting from its higher boost clock of 1762 MHz and its defined display output configuration of 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The single-slot form factor and 50 W TDP also make it a practical choice for space-constrained workstation environments where multi-monitor 2D output is the primary task. Its 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth and 64-bit bus are sufficient for 2D workloads, and its 768 shading units do not bottleneck desktop composition tasks.

The production status difference matters here: the RTX 3050 A Mobile is end-of-life, while the RTX A400 is active with a successor in the Workstation Ada line. The RTX A400's predecessor is Quadro Turing, and its successor is Workstation Ada. The RTX 3050 A Mobile's predecessor is GeForce 20 Mobile, and it has no listed successor. This suggests the RTX A400 is a current product with ongoing availability, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile is a legacy part. For new deployments requiring an active product lifecycle, the RTX A400 has that advantage, though its benchmark performance is consistently lower.