NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM and NVIDIA Quadro M2000 represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The RTX 3050 OEM wins both head-to-head tests decisively, but the Quadro M2000 still holds relevance in specific legacy workstation contexts. Here is the breakdown of what the numbers actually mean for a builder.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards were compared directly in two compute-oriented tests, and the results are lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3050 OEM scored 60,740 points against the Quadro M2000’s 14,588 points. That is a delta of 316.4%, meaning the RTX 3050 OEM delivers roughly four times the raw compute performance in this workload. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story: the RTX 3050 OEM posted 57,103 points versus the Quadro M2000’s 14,475 points, a 294.5% advantage. If you are running any modern compute or rendering task that leverages these APIs, the RTX 3050 OEM is not just faster — it is in a different performance class entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RTX 3050 OEM’s average benchmark score of 15,199 places it at the 57th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (average score 15,171, a 0.2% difference) and the AMD Radeon 680M (15,270, a -0.5% difference). This means the RTX 3050 OEM sits right in the middle of the modern mainstream pack, trading blows with those integrated and entry-level discrete solutions. The Quadro M2000, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 14,532, putting it at the 56th percentile. Its closest competitors are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14,404, 0.9% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385, 1% ahead). While the percentile rankings are nearly identical, the absolute scores show the RTX 3050 OEM is about 4.6% faster on average across all recorded tests — a modest but consistent edge.

The only head-to-head tests available are the two Geekbench entries, and the RTX 3050 OEM wins both. There are no test results where the Quadro M2000 comes out ahead. The data is unambiguous: in raw benchmark performance, the newer card dominates.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains the performance chasm. The RTX 3050 OEM uses the GA106 chip on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It packs 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The Quadro M2000, on the other hand, uses the GM206 chip on the older Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It has just 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, with a density of 12.9 million per mm². The RTX 3050 OEM has more than four times the transistor count on a die that is only about 21% larger — a direct result of the process node advantage.

Core counts differ massively. The RTX 3050 OEM has 2,304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It also includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, features that simply do not exist on the Quadro M2000. The M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor hardware at all. The FP32 compute rating tells the tale: the RTX 3050 OEM delivers 8.087 TFLOPS, while the Quadro M2000 manages only 1.786 TFLOPS. The RTX 3050 OEM also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (8.087 TFLOPS), while the M2000 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory technology is another generational leap. The RTX 3050 OEM comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus width, but at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for only 105.8 GB/s. That is roughly half the memory capacity and less than half the bandwidth — a critical gap for texture-heavy workloads or large datasets.

The feature set also diverges. The RTX 3050 OEM supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M2000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 3050 OEM uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, whereas the M2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power draw differs too: the RTX 3050 OEM is rated at 130 W with a single 8-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, while the M2000 sips 75 W, needs no power connector, and runs off a 250 W PSU. Physical dimensions also differ, with the RTX 3050 OEM at 242 mm (9.5 inches) long and the M2000 at 201 mm (7.9 inches) long, though both are 112 mm (4.4 inches) tall.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for almost any modern workload: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is the superior card. It wins every head-to-head benchmark by a margin of roughly 300%, has more than four times the FP32 compute throughput, double the memory capacity, more than double the memory bandwidth, and supports newer APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate and hardware ray tracing. Its average benchmark score of 15,199 puts it in the same league as the AMD Radeon RX 7600 and RTX 2060, making it a viable entry-level option for current gaming and compute tasks. The Quadro M2000, with an average score of 14,532, is not far behind in percentile ranking (56th vs 57th), but that ranking is based on a much smaller set of benchmark results and does not reflect the massive gap in the tests where both were measured.

The Quadro M2000’s only advantages are practical, not performance-based. It draws 75 W versus 130 W, requires no auxiliary power connector, and is a single-slot card measuring 201 mm long, compared to the RTX 3050 OEM’s dual-slot, 242 mm length with an 8-pin connector. For a builder with a constrained power budget or a tight chassis, that could matter. But the benchmark data shows no scenario where the M2000 wins on speed. If you need raw performance, the RTX 3050 OEM is the only rational pick.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two cards differ, based on the data provided.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ampere | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 12,000 million | 2,940 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 228 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 12.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1515 MHz | 796 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1755 MHz | 1163 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 105.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 768 |

| TMUs | 72 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 18 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 72 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 56.16 GPixel/s | 37.22 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 126.4 GTexel/s | 55.82 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 8.087 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.087 TFLOPS (1:1) | None listed |

| TDP | 130 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | 242 mm (9.5 inches) | 201 mm (7.9 inches) |

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scored 60,740 points versus the Quadro M2000’s 14,588 points, a 316.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000 win any benchmark comparison?

A: No. Across the two head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the RTX 3050 OEM wins both. The wins tally is 2 for the RTX 3050 OEM and 0 for the Quadro M2000.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6, while the Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5. The RTX 3050 OEM also has 224.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 105.8 GB/s.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro M2000 has no ray tracing cores, while the RTX 3050 OEM includes 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The Quadro M2000 is rated at 75 W TDP with no power connector, while the RTX 3050 OEM is rated at 130 W TDP and requires a single 8-pin connector.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has an average benchmark score of 15,199, placing it at the 57th percentile. The Quadro M2000 has an average score of 14,532, placing it at the 56th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 OEM wins in every measurable performance category. It is the clear choice for any workload that uses Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan, where it is roughly three to four times faster. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for modern game textures, larger compute datasets, and any task that benefits from FP16 throughput. The inclusion of ray tracing and tensor cores opens up hardware-accelerated features that the Quadro M2000 cannot access at all. For a builder targeting DirectX 12 Ultimate games or general-purpose GPU compute, the RTX 3050 OEM is the only sensible option.

The Quadro M2000 wins in the physical and power-constrained niches. Its 75 W TDP means it can run in systems with weaker power supplies (250 W suggested PSU vs 300 W) and no auxiliary power connector. Its single-slot design and shorter 201 mm length make it easier to fit in compact or legacy chassis. It also outputs four DisplayPort 1.2 connections, which may be useful for multi-monitor setups that do not require HDMI. However, these advantages are purely logistical — the data shows no benchmark scenario where the M2000 outperforms the RTX 3050 OEM. If your priority is raw speed, the RTX 3050 OEM wins outright. If your priority is minimal power draw and a small footprint, the M2000 has a niche role, but you will be sacrificing over 300% of performance in the tests measured.