GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop VS GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop
We are comparing the GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop (NVIDIA) with the GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop (NVIDIA). Scroll down to the pros and cons of each graphics card, in-depth specs, and gaming benchmarks.
Last Updated: September 14, 2026
Overall Comparison
KEY DIFFERENCES OF GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop AND GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop
Here’s how GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop and GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop stack up against each other in their most impactful areas.
Why GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop is the best choice:
-
131% higher 4K Ultra FPS (37 vs 16)
-
109% higher 1440p Ultra FPS (67 vs 32)
-
96% higher 1080p Ultra FPS (92 vs 47)
-
4% higher Boost Clock (1455 MHz vs 1398.5 MHz)
-
115% higher 3DMark Time Spy score (10475 vs 4883)
SPECIFICATION TABLE COMPARISON OF GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop AND GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop
Below is the detailed specification table comparing GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop and GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop.
Note: Highlighted specs mean that GPU wins that spec row.
If neither side is highlighted, it is a tie or there is not enough data for both specs.
| Specification | GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop | GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop |
|---|---|---|
|
General Info
|
||
| GPU Name: | GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop | GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop |
| GPU Type: | Laptop GPU | Laptop GPU |
| Codename: | GA107 | GA104 (GN20-E5) |
| Vendor: | NVIDIA | NVIDIA |
| Foundry: | Samsung | Samsung |
| Architecture: | Ampere | Ampere |
| Generation: | GeForce 30 Mobile | GeForce 30 Mobile |
| Release Date: | May 11, 2021 | January 12, 2021 |
|
Board Design
|
||
| Bus Interface: | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| PCIe Version: | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| PCIe Lanes: | 16 | 16 |
| Process Size: | 8 nm | 8 nm |
| Transistors: | 8.7 billion | 17.4 billion |
| Density: | 43.5 MTr/mm² | 44.39 MTr/mm² |
| Die Size: | 200 mm² | 392 mm² |
| Total Graphics Power (TGP): | 35-95 W | 80-150 W |
|
Graphics Processor
|
||
| Compute Units: | 16 | 40 |
| Shading Units: | 2048 | 5120 |
| Texture Mapping Units (TMUs): | 64 | 160 |
| Render Output Units (ROPs): | 40 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores: | 64 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores: | 16 | 40 |
| Base Clock: | 712-1530 MHz | 780-1215 MHz |
| Boost Clock: | 1057-1740 MHz | 1290-1620 MHz |
| L1 Cache: | 128 KB per cluster | 128 KB per cluster |
| L2 Cache: | 2 MB | 4 MB |
|
Raw Performance
|
||
| Pixel Fill Rate: | 70 GPixel/s | 103-130 GPixel/s |
| Texture Fill Rate: | 111 GTexel/s | 206-259 GTexel/s |
| FP32 Performance: | 7.1 TFLOPs | 16.6 TFLOPs |
|
Memory
|
||
| Memory Type: | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Size: | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory Bus Width: | 128-bit | 256-bit |
| Memory Clock: | 1500 MHz | 1500-1750 MHz |
| Effective Memory Speed: | 12000 Mbps | 12000-14000 Mbps |
| Bandwidth: | 192 GB/s | 448 GB/s |
|
APIs
|
||
| DirectX: | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Vulkan: | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL: | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL: | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| CUDA: | 8.6 | 8.6 |
| Ray Tracing: | 1 | 1 |
| DLSS: | DLSS 2 | DLSS 2 |
| DisplayPort: | 1.4a | 1.4a |
|
Gaming FPS
|
||
| 1080p Ultra (FPS): | 47 | 92 |
| 1440p Ultra (FPS): | 32 | 67 |
| 4K Ultra (FPS): | 16 | 37 |
|
Benchmarks
|
||
|
3D Mark
|
||
| Steel Nomad Lite | 4912 | 10230 |
| Time Spy | 4883 | 10475 |
| Solar Bay | 21609 | 45503 |
| Port Royal | 553 | 6247 |
| Fire Strike | 12556 | 26735 |
| Wild Life Extreme | 9427 | 21171 |
| Night Raid | 53588 | 82695 |
|
GeekBench 6 OpenCL
|
||
| Compute Score | 58733 | 118499 |
| Background Blur | 88.6 img/sec | 170.3 img/sec |
| Face Detection | 57.3 img/sec | 113.6 img/sec |
| Horizon Detection | 2.53 Gpixels/sec | 5.59 Gpixels/sec |
| Edge Detection | 3.33 Gpixels/sec | 7.94 Gpixels/sec |
| Gaussian Blur | 2.55 Gpixels/sec | 6.19 Gpixels/sec |
| Feature Matching | 0.76 Gpixels/sec | 1.16 Gpixels/sec |
| Stereo Matching | 256.5 Gpixels/sec | 467 Gpixels/sec |
| Particle Physics | 7465.5 | 15131.3 |
|
Passmark Graphics
|
||
| G3D Mark | 9493 | 15105 |
| G2D Mark | 490 | 630 |
| DirectX 11 | 71 | 137 |
| DirectX 12 | 46 | 63 |
| GPU Compute | 3860 | 6702 |
|
Blender (Rendering)
|
||
| Blender Score | 1181 | 3058 |
|
GeekBench 6 ML
|
||
| Single Precision | 10038 | 17250 |
| Half Precision | 19152 | 27936 |
| Quantized | 6984 | 11249 |
| Image Classification | 4349 | 6969 |
| Image Segmentation | 11416 | 17142 |
| Image Super Resolution | 8973 | 16426 |
| Face Detection | 18927 | 31628 |
| Pose Estimation | 34631 | 74413 |
| Text Classification | 2269 | 2522 |
| Machine Translation | 3539 | 3639 |
| Object Detection | 5046 | 9002 |
| Depth Estimation | 15772 | 27790 |
| Style Transfer | 75260 | 160005 |
| Framework | ONNX | ONNX |
| Backend | DirectML | DirectML |
|
FurMark
|
||
| 1080p Vulkan | — | 6522 |
| 1440p Vulkan | — | 4611 |
| 2160p Vulkan | — | 2475 |
| 1080p OpenGL | — | 6432 |
| 1440p OpenGL | — | 4638 |
| 2160p OpenGL | — | 2515 |
Tip: ▲ indicates a higher-is-better spec advantage, while ▼ indicates a lower-is-better advantage.
PERFORMANCE CHART COMPARISON OF GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop AND GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop
The charts below visualize how GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop and GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop stack up in key performance metrics.
Radar Chart Comparison
Bullet Chart Comparison
Release Timeline of GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop and GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop
GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop was released 3 months, 29 days earlier than GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop.
Value For Money Calculator
Prices use available launch or current data. Enter your own prices to see which GPU gives better value.
GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop
GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop
Calculating...
Domain Score Summary
Scores are generated by Comparigon's scoring algorithm and are intended as a high-level guide. They may not map 1-to-1 with the individual spec-by-spec comparisons shown in the table.
Our Verdict
In conclusion, the GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop is clearly better overall compared to the GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop. Its strongest advantages are in Gaming Performance, AI & Machine Learning, Hardware Architecture and Workstation. They are still fairly close in Energy Efficiency.
Try to Compare Again One of These GPUs With Another GPU
Pick which GPU to keep, then search for the other GPU to compare.
Disclaimer: Specs, pricing, and benchmarks are sourced from official manufacturer data and verified test results. While we strive for precision, product details and pricing may change. Comparigon may earn an affiliate commission on qualifying purchases.