NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q Comparison

The Verdict

The database places these two NVIDIA parts in completely different performance classes. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q is the clear winner in the only shared benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where it scores 11,088 versus 469 for the GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, a 95.8% gap. If a workload requires the highest recorded 3D rendering throughput, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q is the only choice from this data. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is a legacy, end-of-life mobile part with a 53rd percentile ranking across all GPUs, meaning it sits just above the median of the database. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q holds a 50th percentile, placing it exactly at the median, which is surprising given its raw score advantage; this suggests the percentile metric accounts for the entire spectrum of tested GPUs, not just these two. For users constrained to a mobile form factor, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is the only one that fits an IGP slot design; the RTX PRO 6000 is a dual-slot desktop card. Otherwise, the recorded data points overwhelmingly to the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q for any 3D workload.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design generations and foundries. The GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile uses the GA106 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, packing 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die, for a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q uses the GB202 chip on a 5 nm TSMC process, with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, achieving 122.9M per mm². The Blackwell part is built on a far denser process, which explains its higher transistor count and larger physical size.

The memory subsystem differs dramatically. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q has 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512 bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). That is a 24x increase in memory capacity and roughly a 9.3x increase in bandwidth, both figures derived directly from the recorded values.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q has 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 188 RT cores, and 752 tensor cores. The Blackwell part provides roughly 9.4x more shading units and the same ratio for TMUs, with 9.4x more tensor cores as well. Pixel rate jumps from 33.12 GPixel/s to 437.8 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 82.80 GTexel/s to 1,714.6 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput rises from 5.299 TFLOPS to 109.7 TFLOPS, and FP16 is identical to FP32 on both parts (1:1).

Other features diverge: the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and has no power connectors, with a 75 W TDP; the RTX PRO 6000 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, requires a single 16-pin connector, and has a 300 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 700 W. The RTX PRO 6000 also supports 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, while the mobile part's display outputs are portable device dependent. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX PRO 6000 is currently active in production status, released in March 2025, while the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is end-of-life, released in May 2021.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes only one head-to-head test: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q scores 11,088, and the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 469. The delta is recorded as -95.8% from the perspective of the mobile part, meaning the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 95.8% slower in this test. This is not a close contest; the RTX PRO 6000 delivers roughly 23.6x the score of the mobile chip, based on the ratio of 11,088 to 469.

For context, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon RX 580 (average score 12,928, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986, delta -0.4%), the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870, delta 0.5%), and the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847, delta 0.7%). In its own average benchmark score, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile sits at 12,940, which is essentially tied with the RX 580 and GTX 1660 SUPER, within a fraction of a percent. Its Steel Nomad score of 469, however, is far lower than its average, indicating that this specific DX12 workload is not representative of its overall standing.

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (average score 11,088, delta 0%), the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047, delta 0.4%), and the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225, delta -1.2%). Its Steel Nomad score matches its average exactly, since the database only records one benchmark for this part. This means the RTX PRO 6000's performance in Steel Nomad is identical to its overall average, whereas the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile's Steel Nomad score is far below its average of 12,940, suggesting the mobile chip is not optimized for this particular workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q records 109.7 TFLOPS FP32, while the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile records 5.299 TFLOPS. The Blackwell part is roughly 20.7x faster in this metric.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has 192.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q has 1.79 TB/s from 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512 bit bus.

Q: What is the difference in transistor density?

A: The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has 43.5M transistors per mm², while the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q has 122.9M per mm², reflecting the 5 nm TSMC process versus the 8 nm Samsung process.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer PCIe interface?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both are x16 lanes.

Q: Are both GPUs currently in production?

A: No. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is marked as end-of-life, with a release date of May 2021. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q is active, with a release date of March 2025.

Q: How do the two compare in the recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad test?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 scores 11,088 versus 469 for the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, a 95.8% deficit for the mobile part. The RTX PRO 6000 wins the only head-to-head test.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q wins the only direct benchmark comparison, and it also dominates every architectural metric recorded in the database. For any workload that relies on raw shading, ray tracing, tensor operations, or memory bandwidth, this part is the superior choice. The 24,064 shading units, 188 RT cores, 752 tensor cores, and 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth are all orders of magnitude larger than the mobile part's equivalents. The 96 GB memory capacity is particularly notable for large dataset workloads, and the 512 bit bus provides the bandwidth to feed the compute units. The RTX PRO 6000 also offers a dual-slot form factor with 4x DisplayPort 2.1b, suitable for workstation setups. Its active production status and recent release date indicate it is the current generation part.

The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has no wins in the head-to-head data. Its strengths are limited to its form factor: it is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, designed for portable devices. It is the only one of the two that can fit in a laptop or slim chassis. Its average benchmark score of 12,940 places it near the AMD Radeon RX 580 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, so in the broader database it is comparable to those desktop parts from an earlier era. However, in the specific Steel Nomad test, it scores far below its own average, indicating it is not suited for modern DX12 workloads at high settings. For legacy applications or light mobile use, the 4 GB memory and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the RTX PRO 6000 in compute or rendering.

In summary, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q is the performance winner across every recorded metric, while the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is the only option for portable, low-power systems. The choice depends entirely on the physical form factor required, not on performance, because the performance gap is decisive and one-sided.