Possible NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB Edition Specifications Appear

[Keullo-e]

Just why? 3050 is already an entry-level card by today's standards so they decided to make it even slower with recuded shaders and a narrower memory bus. This has so strong GTX 1630 vibes on it.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

He could install "MSI Afterburner" to lower the "Power Target". Nvidia cards I've tried allow a 22 percent reduction of the Power Target, so the 70 watt target would be lowered to a 54.6 watt target, and the performance still would be higher than the RX 6400, because of the extra 2 GB of VRAM, the doubled PCIe lanes, the higher bandwidth of the RAM, and the far better OpenGL support, but I wouldn't trust a 180 watt power supply to have 54.6 watts to spare either, plus it should have extra capacity to handle the power spikes above the target.

I will buy this because it is the cheapest path to my goal. All of the games I want to replay are old, and reach 60 FPS while using the 1920 x 1080 resolution, while the visual settings are slightly below the maximum, while using the RX 6400 card. With this 3050 6 GB card, I could use the maximum visual settings. Plus, all of the "new" unreleased ones I want to play are low-budget games that still have low system requirements, even though they are 3D (the ones that have pre-release demos available reach 60 FPS while using slightly-reduced visual settings).

My desire to play games is too low to buy a new power supply, and too low to buy a new computer, because my CPU is NOT a bottleneck in my games. My goals don't require more than this 3050 6 GB, but still WILL be improved by it. This card is designed for people who have low requirements, but not as low as RX 6400, and who have ensured their CPUs are not the bottleneck.

I'd extend this to an RTX 4060. Even limited to 55 W, it's miles ahead of any 3050. Once you change your mind about your PSU, you will also get another one performance boost.

Plus you'll have no need to upgrade for a lot longer.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I'd extend this to an RTX 4060. Even limited to 55 W, it's miles ahead of any 3050. Once you change your mind about your PSU, you will also get another one performance boost.

Plus you'll have no need to upgrade for a lot longer.

I've spent some time considering a power-limited 4060 as it should be the current low power efficiency champion but the problem is Nvidia usually allows around a 25% reduction in power (as exposed in Afterburner) and that only gets you to about 86W. Still too high unfortunately for many OEM PCs or weak PSUs.

There's the more heavyhanded clock limiting (along with undervolt of course) but you really need to be careful in some games where at the same clock speed certain scenes in some games can load the with GPU 15-20% more power at the same clocks*. So do you then optimize for 45W and get considerably less performance most of the time (as at those low powers just the memory subsystems will be 50% or more of the TBP) or run at 55W and be eternally vigilant about those high-power games?

Lol I'd go the eternally vigilant route as I'm kinda OCD about managing all my cards' clocks and power but then I've also forgotten a bunch of times as well.

* an example of this +15% is playing Ark: SE with a fixed max GPU core frequency with my GTX 1080 at 1911 MHz and 0.9V and almost all of the game tops out at 135W TBP. Except when you need to access your Argy or Theri's inventories and you need to stick your nose up to the animal to get close enough to open it. The closeup feathers push TBP to 155W and is the only time in the game I see this +15% power use.

 

[Ruined Mind]

I've spent some time considering a power-limited 4060 as it should be the current low power efficiency champion but the problem is Nvidia usually allows around a 25% reduction in power (as exposed in Afterburner) and that only gets you to about 86W. Still too high unfortunately for many OEM PCs or weak PSUs.

There's the more heavyhanded clock limiting (along with undervolt of course) but you really need to be careful in some games where at the same clock speed certain scenes in some games can load the with GPU 15-20% more power at the same clocks*. So do you then optimize for 45W and get considerably less performance most of the time (as at those low powers just the memory subsystems will be 50% or more of the TBP) or run at 55W and be eternally vigilant about those high-power games?

Lol I'd go the eternally vigilant route as I'm kinda OCD about managing all my cards' clocks and power but then I've also forgotten a bunch of times as well.

* an example of this +15% is playing Ark: SE with a fixed max GPU core frequency with my GTX 1080 at 1911 MHz and 0.9V and almost all of the game tops out at 135W TBP. Except when you need to access your Argy or Theri's inventories and you need to stick your nose up to the animal to get close enough to open it. The closeup feathers push TBP to 155W and is the only time in the game I see this +15% power use.

That's an insane mess to worry about (I mean underclocking and undervolting). His 180 watt power supply definitely won't have the 70 watts to spare, and the minimum Power Target that Nvidia allows probably still would require too much power. 180 is not enough. I wouldn't trust it with more than the 30 watt GT 1030 card.

A long time ago, I had many years of heavy usage with a 60 watt card without problems, and I've detached so many items since then that I've probably cleared an extra 10 watts, and switching from an HDD to a SATA SSD reduced the power consumption further, so I'm quite sure I could handle a 70 watt card, and even if I couldn't, I'd use the Power Target feature to reduce it to 60 watts. But even the minimum allowed Power Target of 54 wouldn't cause me to trust a 180 watt power supply.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Just why? 3050 is already an entry-level card by today's standards so they decided to make it even slower with recuded shaders and a narrower memory bus. This has so strong GTX 1630 vibes on it.

Had to think about this a minute too, then recalled years ago and my trusty 750, which ran great in my old Haswell Dell desktop with no GPU power connector and a 380W PSU.

The 1650 was the last in this segment AFAIK. There has been this gap in their lineup for people who get SFF or OEM desktops without GPU connectors or without the PSU oomph to drive a big GPU, and aren't looking to play over 60FPS / 1080P medium, but want a lot more than IGPs offer. This likely describes 50%+ of gamers. The 1650 was until recently the #1 GPU used on Steam, just recently got bumped to 2nd place by the 3060.

 

[kony]

He could install "MSI Afterburner" to lower the "Power Target". Nvidia cards I've tried allow a 22 percent reduction of the Power Target, so the 70 watt target would be lowered to a 54.6 watt target, and the performance still would be higher than the RX 6400, because of the extra 2 GB of VRAM, the doubled PCIe lanes, the higher bandwidth of the RAM, and the far better OpenGL support, but I wouldn't trust a 180 watt power supply to have 54.6 watts to spare either, plus it should have extra capacity to handle the power spikes above the target.

I will buy this because it is the cheapest path to my goal. All of the games I want to replay are old, and reach 60 FPS while using the 1920 x 1080 resolution, while the visual settings are slightly below the maximum, while using the RX 6400 card. With this 3050 6 GB card, I could use the maximum visual settings. Plus, all of the "new" unreleased ones I want to play are low-budget games that still have low system requirements, even though they are 3D (the ones that have pre-release demos available reach 60 FPS while using slightly-reduced visual settings).

My desire to play games is too low to buy a new power supply, and too low to buy a new computer, because my CPU is NOT a bottleneck in my games. My goals don't require more than this 3050 6 GB, but still WILL be improved by it. This card is designed for people who have low requirements, but not as low as RX 6400, and who have ensured their CPUs are not the bottleneck.

Yeah, I might buy it to use it in an eGPU enclosure just to max out two or three games I play on my laptop with an iGPU on minimum settings and some indie RPGs. I don't care how well it will run new AAA games because I won't bother playing them.

Something most of this forum seems not to comprehend, not everyone cares about AAA or even new games in general, or not in every build. If I can play Bannerlord on high instead of minimum that's already enough for me, and the fact I might not be able to play Alan Wake 2 doesn't bother me because I won't play it even if I have got 4090.

The fact that it's such low power is a great advantage as I could entirely power it through thunderbolt, no need to connect it to a power socket, and the card will be small, so even taking it with laptop when traveling will be possible.

 

[Dawora]

Its expected to be $180 as much as rx 6600, an 25-30% slower than standard rtx 3050
so somewhere around rx 6500xt
View attachment 329840

U cant just take 25-30% out of this chart and call it a day.
(u know in this chart 62% -30% = 42%
not 32%)

And looking spects its 15% slower than 3050 "elder"

so 3050 6GB will be around 52-55% in this chart.


6500 just sux because 4GB and they benchmark higher settings so 4GB is too low in those settings sometimes.
3050 whit 6GB dont have same problems than 4GB vram Gpus

 

[usiname]

U cant just take 25-30% out of this chart and call it a day.
(u know in this chart 62% -30% = 42%
not 32%)

And looking spects its 15% slower than 3050 "elder"

so 3050 6GB will be around 52-55% in this chart.


6500 just sux because 4GB and they benchmark higher settings so 4GB is too low in those settings sometimes.
3050 whit 6GB dont have same problems than 4GB vram Gpus

15% slower , 55% in the chart, now you cant make the math - 62-15% is 52.7 not 55%
10% less cores with 17% lower clocks, 25% lower memory bandwidth, 33% less memory, yeeess, this is exactly 15% slower

 

[ffolekram]

There's no bad gpus just bad prices,
jsut image if this card is only $100, I'm sure nvidia could spare some igm out of $180...

 

[Dawora]

15% slower , 55% in the chart, now you cant make the math - 62-15% is 52.7 not 55%
10% less cores with 17% lower clocks, 25% lower memory bandwidth, 33% less memory, yeeess, this is exactly 15% slower

Just like i told,but u only cherry pick or u didint see?

" 3050 6GB will be around 52-55% in this chart."
that what i told, it seems u got some problems to see the first numbers?

yes 15% is 52.7 but u dont know it will be 15% slower or maybe its 13%, there is no benchmarks yet.
So thats why its somewhere around 52-55%

But the first thing was when u told
"it will be somewhere around rx6500xt"
That was wrong, but dont be a mad its okay to be newbie and learn something new everyday.

3050 6GB can be just right GPU for u, so just wait benchmarks until u buy, or look used Rtx2060/Rtx2070 those are usualy cheap ones in used markets. Have fun!

 

[usiname]

Just like i told,but u only cherry pick or u didint see?

" 3050 6GB will be around 52-55% in this chart."
that what i told, it seems u got some problems to see the first numbers?

yes 15% is 52.7 but u dont know it will be 15% slower or maybe its 13%, there is no benchmarks yet.
So thats why its somewhere around 52-55%

But the first thing was when u told
"it will be somewhere around rx6500xt"
That was wrong, but dont be a mad its okay to be newbie and learn something new everyday.

3050 6GB can be just right GPU for u, so just wait benchmarks until u buy, or look used Rtx2060/Rtx2070 those are usualy cheap ones in used markets. Have fun!

Strange to hear this from clueless person, who believe card that is with 30% lower in every aspect will end 11% slower (yes man, learn the math already, 62-11% is 55.18). I already have 3070 so I don't need such junk. About you and your level and your love for this junk, I already see you to run to she shop on the release day to get the slowest card from 3 years ago castrated on max for 2025 price to upgrade your 1050

 

[zldzkd]

why evga gpu post in there

 

[willcf15]

I'm actually pretty hype about this. If it is actually about 75% as fast as the RTX 3050 8GB, it'll be the fastest card on the market that doesn't require additional power cables. It's about time we had a new card to slap in those old office PCs! Hopefully they don't do something silly like try to use only 4 PCIe lanes (looking at you, RX 6400) so it can be used on the old motherboards that will probably be its bread and butter

 

[kapone32]

Yeah, I might buy it to use it in an eGPU enclosure just to max out two or three games I play on my laptop with an iGPU on minimum settings and some indie RPGs. I don't care how well it will run new AAA games because I won't bother playing them.

Something most of this forum seems not to comprehend, not everyone cares about AAA or even new games in general, or not in every build. If I can play Bannerlord on high instead of minimum that's already enough for me, and the fact I might not be able to play Alan Wake 2 doesn't bother me because I won't play it even if I have got 4090.

The fact that it's such low power is a great advantage as I could entirely power it through thunderbolt, no need to connect it to a power socket, and the card will be small, so even taking it with laptop when traveling will be possible.

Those EGPU enclosures are expensive already. A budget card would make that equation in congruent.

Most likely be in prebuilts like dell, Lenovo or what not… most likely be advertised this is a gaming capable pc and it only costs this much blah blah… huge markup

With RTX to boot.

U cant just take 25-30% out of this chart and call it a day.
(u know in this chart 62% -30% = 42%
not 32%)

And looking spects its 15% slower than 3050 "elder"

so 3050 6GB will be around 52-55% in this chart.


6500 just sux because 4GB and they benchmark higher settings so 4GB is too low in those settings sometimes.
3050 whit 6GB dont have same problems than 4GB vram Gpus

Do you really believe an extra 2GB is going to make a difference? Knowing Nvidia this might not even share the same die as the 3060 12GB which makes that even worse.

 

[Vl85]

If it is actually about 75% as fast as the RTX 3050 8GB, it'll be the fastest card on the market that doesn't require additional power cables

NVIDIA RTX A2000 Review - World’s Fastest ITX Card: Low-Profile and Slot-Powered

 

[willcf15]

NVIDIA RTX A2000 Review - World’s Fastest ITX Card: Low-Profile and Slot-Powered

Good point, I did forget about that card. I suppose I should have said:

If it is actually about 75% as fast as the RTX 3050 8GB, it'll be the fastest reasonably priced card on the market that doesn't require additional power cables.

The RTX A2000 is a super cool card, but I don't see any below $440, and that's a refurb. Definitely out of the price range for the "throwing in an old HP to make a media PC" market.

This, of course, assumes that NVidia doesn't do something outrageous with pricing...fingers crossed

 

[Dawora]

Its expected to be $180 as much as rx 6600, an 25-30% slower than standard rtx 3050
so somewhere around rx 6500xt
View attachment 329840

And u was sooo wrong young padawan...

U say.. Around 6500XT

 

[usiname]

And u was sooo wrong young padawan...

U say.. Around 6500XT

Just what I told you, now go to buy 3050 6GB to upgrade your potato 1050

By the way, what happend with your prediction "13%" slower than 3050 8GB? That is what happening when you are skip the math classes