NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile Comparison

The data shows a close contest between two Ampere-based mobile GPUs, with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile taking the majority of benchmark wins, while the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile counters in pure compute. Both are end-of-life parts aimed at different priorities, and the benchmark results clarify where each excels.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile wins 8 of 9 head-to-head comparisons, but the margins are often modest. The largest gap appears in Passmark DirectX 11, where the 3050 Ti scores 76 versus the A2000’s 68, a 10.5% advantage. That is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison, and it points to a real-world edge in older DirectX 11 titles. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 3050 Ti posts 57915 against the A2000’s 56518, a 2.4% lead. The Geekbench Vulkan result is similar: 55812 versus 53146, a 4.8% margin. These are not overwhelming victories, but they are consistent.

The A2000’s lone win is in Passmark GPU Compute, where it scores 4334 to the 3050 Ti’s 4305, a 0.7% edge. That is a narrow win, but it signals that the A2000’s compute-oriented design holds up even when its gaming-focused sibling is faster elsewhere. In the remaining Passmark tests, the 3050 Ti leads by smaller margins: DirectX 10 (60 vs 57, 5% ahead), DirectX 12 (49 vs 47, 4.1% ahead), DirectX 9 (120 vs 115, 4.2% ahead), and G2D (498 vs 491, 1.4% ahead). The G3D score, often a proxy for overall gaming performance, lands at 10093 for the 3050 Ti versus 9611 for the A2000, a 4.8% difference.

Looking at average scores, the A2000 actually posts a higher average benchmark score of 13821 compared to the 3050 Ti’s 12940. That seems contradictory given the head-to-head results, but it reflects different benchmark suites weighting compute heavily. The A2000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 660M at 13812 (0.1% difference), while the 3050 Ti sits near the AMD Radeon RX 580 at 12928 (0.1% difference). Both GPUs sit in the mid-range percentile bracket: the A2000 ranks at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, while the 3050 Ti is at the 53rd. Neither is a top-tier part, but the A2000’s higher percentile and average score suggest it has broader strength beyond the tested head-to-head games.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Ampere architecture and fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process, but they use different chips. The A2000 uses the GA107 die, while the 3050 Ti uses the larger GA106 die. Transistor counts differ substantially: the GA106 packs 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, whereas the GA107 has 8,700 million on a 200 mm² die. Interestingly, both have the same transistor density of 43.5M / mm², so the size difference is purely a function of the larger chip.

The core configs are identical in many respects. Both have 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The key difference is in ROPs: the A2000 has 48 ROPs, while the 3050 Ti has 32. That 50% ROP advantage for the A2000 directly explains its higher pixel rate of 80.98 GPixel/s versus the 3050 Ti’s 33.12 GPixel/s. The texture rates also diverge: the A2000 hits 135.0 GTexel/s, while the 3050 Ti manages 82.80 GTexel/s. These fillrate advantages are substantial, even if they do not always translate to wins in the benchmark suite.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The A2000 runs at a base of 1215 MHz and boost of 1687 MHz, while the 3050 Ti is far lower at 735 MHz base and 1035 MHz boost. That clock gap is why the A2000 achieves 8.637 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the 3050 Ti’s 5.299 TFLOPS. Both GPUs have FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so the A2000 also doubles the 3050 Ti in half-precision compute. Memory is identical: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed, yielding 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The TDPs differ, with the A2000 rated at 95 W and the 3050 Ti at 75 W. That higher power budget likely enables the A2000’s higher clocks. Both are IGP form factors with no power connectors, so they rely on the motherboard’s power delivery. The A2000 was released on 2021-04-11, while the 3050 Ti followed on 2021-05-10. The A2000’s predecessor is the Quadro Turing-M and its successor is Ada-MW, whereas the 3050 Ti’s predecessor is the GeForce 20 Mobile and it has no listed successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile is clearly ahead, with 8.637 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile’s 5.299 TFLOPS. The A2000 also leads in pixel rate (80.98 GPixel/s vs 33.12 GPixel/s) and texture rate (135.0 GTexel/s vs 82.80 GTexel/s).

Q: Why does the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile win most benchmarks despite lower compute specs?

A: The benchmark results show the 3050 Ti winning 8 of 9 head-to-head tests, including Geekbench OpenCL (57915 vs 56518) and Vulkan (55812 vs 53146). The margins are modest, ranging from 1.4% to 10.5%, but they are consistent across DirectX 9 through 12, suggesting driver optimizations or workload characteristics favor the 3050 Ti in these specific tests.

Q: Are there any tests where the A2000 Mobile wins?

A: Yes, the A2000 wins the Passmark GPU Compute test, scoring 4334 versus the 3050 Ti’s 4305, a 0.7% advantage. This is a narrow win, but it aligns with the A2000’s higher compute throughput (8.637 TFLOPS) and suggests it is better suited for compute-heavy workloads.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: They are identical. Both use 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 1500 MHz memory clocks and 12 Gbps effective speed, resulting in 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory capacity and bandwidth are not differentiating factors.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile has a TDP of 95 W, while the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is rated at 75 W. The A2000’s higher TDP likely enables its significantly higher boost clock of 1687 MHz versus the 3050 Ti’s 1035 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has better overall standing among all GPUs?

A: The A2000 Mobile is at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13821. The 3050 Ti Mobile is at the 53rd percentile, with an average score of 12940. The A2000 also has a higher average score, indicating better overall benchmark performance across a broader set of tests.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share many specifications but differ in several key areas. The A2000 uses the GA107 chip, while the 3050 Ti uses the GA106. Transistor counts are 8,700 million for the A2000 and 12,000 million for the 3050 Ti, with die sizes of 200 mm² and 276 mm² respectively. Both are on an 8 nm Samsung process.

Clock speeds diverge sharply: the A2000 has a 1215 MHz base and 1687 MHz boost, while the 3050 Ti has a 735 MHz base and 1035 MHz boost. The A2000 has 48 ROPs versus the 3050 Ti’s 32, and the fillrates reflect this: 80.98 GPixel/s and 135.0 GTexel/s for the A2000, versus 33.12 GPixel/s and 82.80 GTexel/s for the 3050 Ti. Compute performance is 8.637 TFLOPS for the A2000 and 5.299 TFLOPS for the 3050 Ti.

TDP is 95 W for the A2000 and 75 W for the 3050 Ti. The release dates are 2021-04-11 and 2021-05-10 respectively. The A2000’s predecessor is the Quadro Turing-M and its successor is Ada-MW, while the 3050 Ti’s predecessor is the GeForce 20 Mobile and it has no successor listed. Both have identical memory (4 GB GDDR6, 128-bit, 192.0 GB/s), shading units (2560), TMUs (80), RT cores (20), and tensor cores (80). Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is the pick for gaming and general DirectX workload performance. It wins every gaming-oriented benchmark in the comparison: Geekbench OpenCL by 2.4%, Geekbench Vulkan by 4.8%, Passmark DirectX 10 by 5%, DirectX 11 by 10.5%, DirectX 12 by 4.1%, DirectX 9 by 4.2%, G2D by 1.4%, and G3D by 4.8%. If you are building a mobile gaming rig or running applications that rely on DirectX APIs, the 3050 Ti is clearly faster.

The A2000 Mobile wins in pure compute throughput. Its 8.637 TFLOPS FP32 performance is 63% higher than the 3050 Ti’s 5.299 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 80.98 GPixel/s is more than double the 3050 Ti’s 33.12 GPixel/s. The Passmark GPU Compute win, albeit by 0.7%, confirms this strength. The A2000 also has a higher average benchmark score of 13821 versus 12940, and a higher percentile rank of 55 versus 53. For compute-heavy tasks like rendering, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference, the A2000 is the better choice.

The A2000’s higher TDP of 95 W versus 75 W suggests it is designed for more demanding sustained workloads, while the 3050 Ti’s lower TDP may be preferable for thinner laptops with tighter thermal budgets. The 50% ROP advantage for the A2000 also points to better performance in fillrate-limited scenarios, even if the benchmark suite does not isolate that advantage.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile if your priority is gaming or DirectX-based applications. The data is unambiguous: it wins 8 of 9 head-to-head benchmarks, with the largest margin being 10.5% in DirectX 11. The G3D score of 10093 versus 9611 is a solid indicator of overall gaming capability. It also consumes less power at 75 W, which may be a practical advantage in mobile form factors.

Pick the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile if you need raw compute performance or fillrate. Its 8.637 TFLOPS FP32, 80.98 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 135.0 GTexel/s texture rate are far ahead of the 3050 Ti. The Passmark GPU Compute win, while small, confirms this strength. The higher average benchmark score of 13821 and 55th percentile ranking also suggest the A2000 is a more versatile performer across a wider range of tests, not just the gaming-focused ones.

Neither GPU is a clear winner for all use cases. The 3050 Ti is the gaming workhorse, while the A2000 is the compute specialist. If you are a gamer, the choice is simple. If your workload involves GPU compute, the A2000’s higher throughput and fillrate make it the more capable tool, despite its lower performance in gaming benchmarks. Both are end-of-life products, so platform availability and driver support should be considered, but based purely on the benchmark data, the decision comes down to gaming versus compute.