NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile vs NVIDIA TITAN RTX Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA TITAN RTX decisively outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile across every measured test. The TITAN RTX wins all three head-to-head comparisons, with the RTX 3050 Mobile trailing by margins ranging from roughly 64% to nearly 89%. This isn't a close contest; it's a generational and market-segment gap made visible through synthetic load testing.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result appears in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, a demanding modern rasterization benchmark. The TITAN RTX scores 3,794, while the RTX 3050 Mobile manages only 421. That’s an 88.9% deficit for the mobile part—the largest relative gap in this comparison. In practical terms, the TITAN RTX delivers over nine times the raw DX12 performance of the RTX 3050 Mobile in this specific workload.

The compute-oriented tests tell a similar story, though with slightly narrower margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN RTX posts 144,858 points against the RTX 3050 Mobile’s 50,038, a 65.5% advantage. The Geekbench Vulkan result shows the TITAN RTX at 136,073 versus 49,051, a 64% lead. These two tests measure general-purpose GPU compute and Vulkan API performance respectively, and the TITAN RTX dominates both.

Notably, the RTX 3050 Mobile’s own average benchmark score of 33,170 places it slightly ahead of the TITAN RTX’s 31,676 average. This apparent contradiction stems from the fact that the TITAN RTX’s average is pulled down by a set of Passmark legacy tests (DirectX 9/10/11/12 and G2D/G3D) where it scores in the low hundreds to low thousands—scores that don't reflect its modern workload capabilities. The RTX 3050 Mobile, by contrast, has only three benchmark entries, all of which are modern tests. When comparing only the shared head-to-head tests, the TITAN RTX is the clear winner across the board.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 Mobile has no benchmark wins in this dataset. Every single head-to-head test—3DMark Steel Nomad, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan—goes to the TITAN RTX. The data shows zero wins for the mobile GPU.

The TITAN RTX wins in every category measured. Its largest margin comes in DX12 rasterization (88.9% ahead), followed by OpenCL compute (65.5% ahead) and Vulkan compute (64% ahead). These results indicate the TITAN RTX is superior for any workload represented by these tests: modern game rendering, general compute, and cross-platform GPU acceleration.

The RTX 3050 Mobile does hold one statistical distinction: its percentile ranking. It sits at the 78th percentile of all GPUs, while the TITAN RTX sits at the 76th. This ranking reflects the full benchmark suite each card is subjected to, and the mobile part’s higher percentile is driven by its consistent performance across its limited test set. However, this percentile ranking does not translate into a head-to-head win; it's a broader statistical artifact rather than a direct performance comparison.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA TITAN RTX is the superior graphics processor for anyone prioritizing raw performance. It wins every shared benchmark by a substantial margin, and its 16.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 672.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth dwarf the RTX 3050 Mobile’s 5.501 TFLOPS and 192.0 GB/s.

Choose the TITAN RTX if you need maximum compute throughput, high-bandwidth memory, or the ability to handle modern DX12 workloads without compromise. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 3,794 versus 421 for the mobile part is the single most telling statistic in this comparison.

Choose the RTX 3050 Mobile only if the application demands a mobile form factor and low power draw. The data shows the TITAN RTX is over 2.5 times faster in OpenCL compute and nearly 3 times faster in Vulkan compute, but the TITAN RTX carries a 280 W TDP and requires a dual-slot cooler, whereas the RTX 3050 Mobile is an IGP with a 45 W TDP. The mobile part also holds a higher general percentile ranking (78th versus 76th), though this doesn't offset its massive performance deficit in direct comparisons.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN RTX wins all three head-to-head benchmarks. The RTX 3050 Mobile wins zero.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where the TITAN RTX scores 3,794 versus 421 for the RTX 3050 Mobile, an 88.9% difference.

Q: How do they compare in compute performance?

A: The TITAN RTX leads by 65.5% in Geekbench OpenCL (144,858 versus 50,038) and by 64% in Geekbench Vulkan (136,073 versus 49,051).

Q: Does the RTX 3050 Mobile have any advantages in the data?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile has a higher percentile ranking (78th versus 76th), a lower TDP (45 W versus 280 W), and a newer release date (2021 versus 2018). It also uses a newer architecture (Ampere versus Turing).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The TITAN RTX has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3050 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 33,170, while the TITAN RTX has an average of 31,676. The TITAN RTX's average is lowered by legacy Passmark tests that are not included in the RTX 3050 Mobile's test set.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The RTX 3050 Mobile uses the Ampere architecture on the GA107 chip, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The TITAN RTX uses the Turing architecture on the TU102 chip, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. These are fundamentally different designs separated by a full generation.

The transistor counts reflect the size disparity. The TITAN RTX packs 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, while the RTX 3050 Mobile has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The TITAN RTX is physically massive by comparison, and its transistor density is lower (24.7M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm²), reflecting the older process node.

Core counts differ dramatically. The TITAN RTX has 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The RTX 3050 Mobile has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The TITAN RTX also has 72 ray tracing cores and 576 tensor cores, versus 16 and 64 respectively on the RTX 3050 Mobile.

The TITAN RTX's FP16 performance is listed at 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), double its FP32 rate. The RTX 3050 Mobile lists FP16 at 5.501 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), identical to its FP32. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature support is equivalent.

Specification Differences

The specifications diverge heavily on memory. The TITAN RTX has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3050 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s. Memory clock differs as well: the TITAN RTX runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds favor the TITAN RTX. Its base clock is 1350 MHz with a boost of 1770 MHz, compared to 1065 MHz base and 1343 MHz boost on the RTX 3050 Mobile. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: the TITAN RTX achieves 169.9 GPixel/s and 509.8 GTexel/s, versus 42.98 GPixel/s and 85.95 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design are starkly different. The TITAN RTX has a 280 W TDP, requires dual-slot cooling, and uses two 8-pin power connectors with a suggested 600 W PSU. The RTX 3050 Mobile is an IGP with a 45 W TDP and no power connectors. The TITAN RTX measures 267 mm in length, 116 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The RTX 3050 Mobile has no listed dimensions.

Bus interface and outputs also differ. The TITAN RTX uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. The RTX 3050 Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The TITAN RTX had a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD; the RTX 3050 Mobile has no listed MSRP. Release dates place the TITAN RTX in December 2018 and the RTX 3050 Mobile in May 2021. Both are end-of-life products.