NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two shared benchmark results between the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile. The RTX 3050 Mobile wins both comparisons, though the margins vary considerably by workload type.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3050 Mobile scores 50,038 points against the Quadro M6000's 39,688 points. That is a 20.7% advantage for the mobile part. This is a substantial gap, placing the RTX 3050 Mobile clearly ahead in general-purpose compute tasks measured by this test. The Quadro M6000's score here is lower than its Vulkan result, suggesting the OpenCL workload favors the newer architecture's scheduling and memory handling.

The Vulkan test shows a much tighter race. The RTX 3050 Mobile scores 49,051, while the Quadro M6000 scores 46,913. The delta shrinks to 4.4% in favor of the RTX 3050 Mobile. While still a win, this margin is within a range where driver optimizations or specific API path implementations could explain the difference. The Quadro M6000's Vulkan score is notably stronger relative to its OpenCL result, indicating the Maxwell architecture handles this workload more efficiently.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro M6000 holds an average benchmark score of 43,301 across all recorded tests, which places it at the 84th percentile of all GPUs. The RTX 3050 Mobile's average score is 33,170, sitting at the 78th percentile. This is an important distinction: while the RTX 3050 Mobile wins both head-to-head tests, the Quadro M6000 has a higher overall average when all its benchmark results are considered. The Quadro M6000's nearest rivals include the RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268, 0.1% lower), the Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262, 0.1% lower), and the RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223, 0.2% lower). The RTX 4090 Mobile sits just 0.8% higher at 43,667. This cluster shows the Quadro M6000 performs in a very tight band around the 43,000 mark.

For the RTX 3050 Mobile, its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA T550 Mobile (33,161, 0% delta), AMD Radeon Pro 570 (33,207, 0.1% higher), NVIDIA P104-100 (32,982, 0.6% lower), and NVIDIA T600 Mobile (32,849, 1% lower). The RTX 3050 Mobile's average score fits comfortably in this mid-range cluster.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations and market segments. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RTX 3050 Mobile uses the GA107 chip based on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This process difference is significant: the Quadro M6000 has a die size of 601 mm², while the RTX 3050 Mobile's die is only 200 mm². Transistor counts are similar (8,000 million for the Quadro, 8,700 million for the RTX), but the density tells the story: 13.3 million transistors per mm² for Maxwell versus 43.5 million per mm² for Ampere.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Quadro M6000 offers 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3050 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 192.0 GB/s. The Quadro's memory clock is 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the RTX runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The RTX's faster memory technology partially compensates for its narrower bus, but the Quadro still holds a clear bandwidth advantage.

Compute resources differ in configuration. The Quadro M6000 packs 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The RTX 3050 Mobile has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. However, the RTX 3050 Mobile adds dedicated hardware the Quadro lacks entirely: 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. These enable features such as hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based operations, which the Maxwell architecture cannot perform in hardware.

Clock speeds favor the RTX 3050 Mobile. Its base clock is 1065 MHz with a boost of 1343 MHz, compared to the Quadro's 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. Despite the higher clocks, the RTX 3050 Mobile's raw throughput is lower in some metrics: its FP32 performance is 5.501 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS for the Quadro. The RTX matches its FP16 at 5.501 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 figure. Pixel rate and texture rate both favor the Quadro: 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s versus 42.98 GPixel/s and 85.95 GTexel/s respectively.

Power and physical specifications could not be more different. The Quadro M6000 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, requiring a single 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested power supply. It measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The RTX 3050 Mobile is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 45 W TDP, no power connectors, and dimensions that are portable-device dependent. The bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX.

API support shows generational progress. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the RTX 3050 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro provides 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RTX's outputs are portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 Mobile wins in raw compute benchmarks that stress general-purpose execution. Its OpenCL score of 50,038 is 20.7% higher than the Quadro's, indicating better performance in workloads that leverage OpenCL kernels. This could include tasks such as image processing, physics simulations, or data-parallel computations. The Vulkan win, while narrower at 4.4%, still favors the RTX in graphics API workloads.

The Quadro M6000 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth scenarios. Its 12 GB frame buffer versus 4 GB means it can handle larger datasets and higher-resolution textures without spilling to system memory. The 317.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 192.0 GB/s gives it a clear edge in memory-bound operations. The Quadro's higher pixel rate (106.9 vs 42.98 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.9 vs 85.95 GTexel/s) indicate stronger fill-rate performance for traditional rasterization workloads.

The RTX 3050 Mobile wins on power efficiency by a wide margin. At 45 W versus 250 W, it delivers its performance at a fraction of the power draw. This makes it suitable for portable devices where thermal and power constraints are primary. The Quadro's 250 W TDP requires desktop-class cooling and power delivery.

The RTX 3050 Mobile also wins on feature support. Its ray tracing cores and tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI features that the Quadro cannot perform. DirectX 12 Ultimate support means access to the latest graphics features, while the Quadro's 12_1 support is a generation behind.

The Quadro M6000 wins on overall average benchmark score, with 43,301 versus 33,170. This suggests that across a broader range of tests, the Quadro's higher raw compute and memory bandwidth give it an edge in some workloads not captured in the two head-to-head tests. Its 84th percentile ranking versus 78th confirms this.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has an average benchmark score of 43,301, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile has 33,170. The Quadro sits at the 84th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 78th percentile for the RTX.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile scores 50,038 versus 39,688 for the Quadro M6000, giving the RTX a 20.7% advantage in this test.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 have more memory?

A: Yes, the Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 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 architectural features does the RTX 3050 Mobile have that the Quadro lacks?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, which enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI operations. The Quadro M6000 has no such hardware.

Q: Which GPU has a higher power draw?

A: The Quadro M6000 has a TDP of 250 W, while the RTX 3050 Mobile has a TDP of 45 W. The Quadro requires a dual-slot cooling solution and an 8-pin power connector, while the RTX is an integrated processor with no power connectors.

Q: How close is the Vulkan benchmark between the two?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile scores 49,051 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro M6000 scores 46,913. The RTX wins by 4.4%.

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision. For users who need maximum memory capacity and bandwidth, the Quadro M6000 is the clear choice. Its 12 GB frame buffer, 384-bit bus, and 317.4 GB/s bandwidth support large datasets and high-resolution textures. Its higher pixel and texture rates (106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s) make it stronger for traditional fill-rate-bound rendering. The higher average benchmark score of 43,301 and 84th percentile ranking confirm its overall compute strength.

For users who need the latest features in a power-constrained form factor, the RTX 3050 Mobile wins decisively. Its 20.7% OpenCL advantage and 4.4% Vulkan advantage show better performance in the measured head-to-head tests. The ray tracing and tensor cores unlock capabilities the Quadro cannot offer. The 45 W TDP versus 250 W makes it feasible for portable devices. The 8 nm process and 43.5M transistors per mm² density demonstrate a much more efficient design.

The choice depends on the workload. For professional visualization with large textures and memory-intensive scenes, the Quadro M6000's memory subsystem is compelling. For modern graphics features, AI acceleration, and power-sensitive deployments, the RTX 3050 Mobile is the better fit. The RTX wins the direct benchmarks, but the Quadro wins the broader average score comparison. Neither GPU dominates across all metrics; the recorded data supports each one for different use cases.