NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM represent two distinct approaches to GPU design, one aimed at professional workstations and the other at the consumer market. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the details of where each card wins and loses are more nuanced than a simple average score comparison might suggest. The Quadro RTX 4000 holds a significant overall advantage, but the RTX 3050 OEM has specific strengths that matter for certain tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Quadro RTX 4000 comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 78,844 against the RTX 3050 OEM's 57,103. This is a 38.1% lead, which is a substantial gap in API-level performance. The OpenCL test tells a similar story, with the Quadro RTX 4000 scoring 74,540 versus 60,740, a 22.7% advantage. These results indicate that the Quadro's architecture is significantly more efficient at handling general-purpose compute and modern graphics workloads.

In legacy DirectX tests, the Quadro RTX 4000 dominates. Its Passmark DirectX 10 score of 108 is 77% higher than the RTX 3050 OEM's 61. The DirectX 11 result shows a 48.8% lead, with scores of 128 and 86 respectively. Even in DirectX 9, the older API, the Quadro maintains a 49.6% advantage, scoring 205 compared to 137. These results suggest the Quadro's driver optimization and hardware design provide better compatibility and performance for older software, which is common in professional environments.

The most important overall gaming and graphics benchmark, Passmark G3D, also goes to the Quadro RTX 4000. Its score of 15,117 is 27.5% higher than the RTX 3050 OEM's 11,857. This is a clear indicator of the Quadro's superior raw graphics processing power.

However, the RTX 3050 OEM is not without its wins. The most notable is in the Passmark DirectX 12 test, where it scores 58 against the Quadro's 52, a 10.3% lead. This is a modern API, so this result is significant. The other win for the RTX 3050 OEM is in the Passmark G2D test, which measures 2D graphics performance. Here, it scores 973 against the Quadro's 846, a 13.1% advantage. This suggests the RTX 3050 OEM has better optimized 2D desktop rendering.

The Passmark GPU Compute test is a closer contest. The Quadro RTX 4000 wins with 6,176 against 5,779, but the margin is only 6.9%. This shows that while the Quadro is stronger in compute, the RTX 3050 OEM is far more competitive in this specific area than in graphics rendering. The Quadro RTX 4000 wins 7 out of 9 head-to-head benchmarks, establishing it as the overall performance leader.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip, based on the Turing architecture, and is manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The RTX 3050 OEM uses the GA106 chip, based on the newer Ampere architecture, and is manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This process difference is stark: the Ampere chip has a much higher transistor density of 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to the Turing chip's 25.0 million. The Turing chip does have more total transistors, at 13,600 million, but it is also much larger, with a die size of 545 mm². The Ampere chip is smaller at 276 mm² with 12,000 million transistors.

These architectural differences lead to major changes in the internal layout. Both GPUs have 2,304 shading units, but the Quadro RTX 4000 has 144 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 64 raster output units (ROPs), while the RTX 3050 OEM has only 72 TMUs and 32 ROPs. This is a critical difference, as the higher TMU and ROP counts are why the Quadro achieves a pixel rate of 98.88 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 222.5 GTexel/s, far exceeding the RTX 3050 OEM's 56.16 GPixel/s and 126.4 GTexel/s.

The ray tracing and tensor core counts also differ significantly. The Quadro RTX 4000 has 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, while the RTX 3050 OEM has 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores. Even though the RTX 3050 OEM is a newer generation, the Quadro's higher counts give it a theoretical advantage in ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads.

Memory architecture is another point of divergence. Both have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, but the Quadro RTX 4000 uses a 256-bit bus, resulting in a bandwidth of 416.0 GB/s. The RTX 3050 OEM is limited to a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. The memory clock is also different, with the Quadro running at 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) and the RTX 3050 OEM at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), but the wide bus on the Quadro more than compensates for the lower clock speed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GeForce RTX 3050 OEM has a higher FP32 throughput at 8.087 TFLOPS compared to the Quadro RTX 4000's 7.119 TFLOPS. However, the Quadro has a significant advantage in FP16 performance, delivering 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) versus the RTX 3050 OEM's 8.087 TFLOPS (1:1).

Q: Is the newer RTX 3050 OEM faster in modern DirectX 12 games?

A: Yes, the data shows the RTX 3050 OEM wins the Passmark DirectX 12 test with a score of 58, which is 10.3% higher than the Quadro RTX 4000's score of 52.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has significantly better memory bandwidth at 416.0 GB/s. This is due to its wider 256-bit memory bus, compared to the RTX 3050 OEM's 128-bit bus, which provides 224.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has a TDP of 160 W and requires a 450 W power supply. The RTX 3050 OEM has a lower TDP of 130 W and can run on a 300 W power supply.

Q: Are both cards the same physical size?

A: They are very close in size. The Quadro RTX 4000 is 241 mm long and 111 mm high, while the RTX 3050 OEM is 242 mm long and 112 mm high. The main difference is that the Quadro is a single-slot card, while the RTX 3050 OEM is a dual-slot design.

Q: Which card performs better in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 is the clear winner, scoring 74,540 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 22.7% higher than the RTX 3050 OEM's score of 60,740.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |

| Process Node | 12 nm (TSMC | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Chip | TU104 | GA106 |

| Transistors | 13,600 million | 12,000 million |

| Die Size | 545 mm² | 276 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1005 MHz | 1515 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1545 MHz | 1755 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 416.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| TMUs | 144 | 72 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 36 | 18 |

| Tensor Cores | 288 | 72 |

| Pixel Rate | 98.88 GPixel/s | 56.16 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 222.5 GTexel/s | 126.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 7.119 TFLOPS | 8.087 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.087 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 160 W | 130 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2018-11-12 | 2022-01-03 |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior performer in the vast majority of tests. Its wins in Vulkan, OpenCL, and all legacy DirectX tests, along with its 27.5% lead in Passmark G3D, make it the more powerful card overall. Its architecture, with more TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, and tensor cores, along with a much larger memory bus, provides a significant advantage in most scenarios. The RTX 3050 OEM is newer, but its only wins are in DirectX 12 and 2D performance.

The Quadro RTX 4000's average benchmark score of 17,789 places it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 3050 OEM's score of 15,199 places it in the 57th percentile. The Quadro's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7790 at 17,666 (0.7% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639 (0.9% slower). The RTX 3050 OEM's rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7600 at 15,171 (0.2% slower) and the AMD Radeon 680M at 15,270 (0.5% faster). This data confirms that the Quadro RTX 4000 sits in a higher performance tier.

The choice comes down to workload priorities. Users who need maximum graphics rendering power, professional compute, and high memory bandwidth should choose the Quadro RTX 4000. Users who are focused on modern DirectX 12 titles, have power constraints, or need a more compact dual-slot card for a smaller chassis, may find the RTX 3050 OEM adequate, but they will be sacrificing significant performance elsewhere.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is the clear winner for:

• Vulkan and OpenCL compute: Its 38.1% and 22.7% leads in these tests make it ideal for applications that leverage these APIs for rendering and general-purpose GPU computing.
• Legacy DirectX performance: With massive leads in DirectX 9, 10, and 11, it is better suited for older professional software and legacy game titles.
• Overall 3D graphics: The 27.5% lead in Passmark G3D confirms it is the stronger choice for demanding 3D rendering workloads.
• High-bandwidth tasks: The 416.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth is nearly double that of the RTX 3050 OEM, which is critical for large data sets and high-resolution textures.
• Compute-heavy tasks: Its 6.9% lead in GPU Compute and superior FP16 performance make it a better fit for AI and scientific workloads.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is the winner for:

• DirectX 12 gaming: Its 10.3% lead in this modern API test makes it a better choice for the latest game titles.
• 2D desktop performance: The 13.1% lead in the G2D test indicates faster and smoother desktop and 2D application rendering.
• Power efficiency and compact builds: With a 130 W TDP and a dual-slot design, it is easier to cool and fits in more cases than the Quadro's single-slot, 160 W design.
• Raw FP32 compute: Its 8.087 TFLOPS exceeds the Quadro's 7.119 TFLOPS, which may benefit certain specific applications that rely on FP32 instructions.