Possible NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB Edition Specifications Appear

[AleksandarK]

Alleged full specifications leaked for NVIDIA's upcoming GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB graphics card show extensive reductions beyond merely reducing memory size versus the 8 GB model. If accurate, performance could lag the existing RTX 3050 8 GB SKU by up to 25%, making it weaker competition even for AMD's budget RX 6500 XT. Previous rumors suggested only capacity and bandwidth differences on a partially disabled memory bus between 3050 variants, which would reduce the memory to 6 GB and 96-bit bus, from 8 GB and 128-bit bus.. But leaked specs indicate CUDA core counts, clock speeds, and TDP all see cuts for the upcoming 6 GB version. With 18 SMs and 2304 cores rather than 20 SMs and 2560 cores at lower base and boost frequencies, the impact looks more severe than expected. A 70 W TDP does allow passive cooling but hurts performance versus the 3050 8 GB's 130 W design.

Some napkin math suggests the 3050 6 GB could deliver only 75% of its elder sibling's frame rates, putting it more in line with the entry-level 6500 XT. While having 50% more VRAM helps, dramatic core and clock downgrades counteract that memory advantage. According to rumors, the RTX 3050 6 GB is set to launch in February, bringing lower-end Ampere to even more budget-focused builders. But with specifications seemingly hobbled beyond just capacity, its real-world gaming value remains to be determined. NVIDIA likely intends RTX 3060 6 GB primarily for less demanding esports titles. Given the scale of cutbacks and the modern AAA title's recommended specifications, mainstream AAA gaming performance seems improbable.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[freeagent]

Just in time!

 

[Onasi]

I assume it will be an OEM card for internet cafes and such. I doubt they could price it at any attractive enough for anyone point at retail.

 

[Tropick]

Looking forward to the RTX 3030 with 256MB GDDR3 and 16 cores. I even heard it's supposed to have full DX9 support!

Honestly though at this point just buy a used 2060..

 

[usiname]

I assume it will be an OEM card for internet cafes and such. I doubt they could price it at any attractive enough for anyone point at retail.

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

 

[Onasi]

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

That’s a bad deal if I ever seen one.

 

[sLowEnd]

It'll perform like crap, but it'll probably still have some appeal for people looking to upgrade prebuilts with very weak PSUs.

 

[Z-GT1000]

GTX 1630 sister

 

[Hyderz]

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

 

[Lew Zealand]

This is a half decent product as long as it's slot-power only and the price comes down as it'll be considerably faster with more memory than the other OEM PC options: 1650 and 6400.

But it should called a 3040 or 3030, full stop. There's nothing quite like a trillion dollar company shooting themselves in the PR foot as everyone bashes them for the intentionally obfuscated naming system.

 

[john_]

Tech press was attacking RX 6500 XT in every way. I doubt they will do the same here. They will obviously point at this card being a bad buy, but they will avoid going to much on the offensive against it, to not upset much Nvidia. The same happened with GTX 1630 that wasn't really covered by the press, so they can keep writing articles and making videos about how bad RX 6500 XT is.

That being said, if the RTX 3050 6GB was offered at $99 or even $119 considering where prices are today, it could have been a pretty nice option for systems that needed a capable card for video playback and some gaming. Unfortunately it will come at an RX 6600 price point and even worst, with all this propaganda from tech press, youtubers, trolls and even simple typical users those last years it will easily outsell the RX 6600. Nvidia is really having a fun ride and people keep bashing AMD for that instead of accepting that they are too responsible for these options at these prices.

 

[Macro Device]

Tech press was attacking RX 6500 XT in every way.

Rightfully so. Even Vega and Fury were orders of magnitudes less questionable.

GTX 1630

It was launched pretty much silently and was positioned as "perhaps it can play games, we dunno" kinda product, unlike 6500 XT that was quite boldly promoted as a "mining boom killing device and saviour." It also had a more reasonable price and didn't impose performance penalty if you dare using anything slower than PCI-e 4.0.

if the RTX 3050 6GB was offered at $99

it could have been a pretty nice option

That's true.

Unfortunately it will come at an RX 6600 price point

A little cheaper but yes.

it will easily outsell the RX 6600.

This is unlikely. People buying 3050 over 6600 know 3050 is slower but has DLSS to compensate for it but 3050 6 GB sounds like "nah, that's too much even for us."

people keep bashing AMD for that.

For a very huge reason. AMD don't try to compete. They just sell overpriced DOA products like Ampere and Ada have never been invented.

All that doesn't mean that 3056 for anything above $100 isn't hot garbage. It of course is hot garbage. But as far as AMD don't offer anything remotely resembling a proper sub $150 GPU things will look like that.

 

[Lew Zealand]

It was launched pretty much silently and was positioned as "perhaps it can play games, we dunno" kinda product, unlike 6500 XT that was quite boldly promoted as a "mining boom killing device and saviour." It also had a more reasonable price and didn't impose performance penalty if you dare using anything slower than PCI-e 4.0.

The 1630 had a completely ridiculous price, even worse than the 6500 XT.

GTX 1630: $150 for 23.7 fps
6500 XT: $200 for 49.7 fps

Gainward GeForce GTX 1630 Ghost Review - Challenging the AMD RX 6400

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 launches today. The new card is targeted at the sub-$200 segment and goes head-to-head with AMD's Radeon RX 6400 and Intel's ARC A380. Unlike the Radeon, the GTX 1630 has support for the full PCIe x16 interface.

www.techpowerup.com

The 6500 XT is a bad product but the 1630 is the very worst in recent memory. Perhaps only the 1030 DDR4 is worse and only because there was a DDR5 version with a similar, obfuscating name with twice the performance.

 

[Macro Device]

The 1630 had a completely ridiculous price, even worse than the 6500 XT.

GTX 1630: $150 for 23.7 fps
6500 XT: $200 for 49.7 fps

Gainward GeForce GTX 1630 Ghost Review - Challenging the AMD RX 6400

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 launches today. The new card is targeted at the sub-$200 segment and goes head-to-head with AMD's Radeon RX 6400 and Intel's ARC A380. Unlike the Radeon, the GTX 1630 has support for the full PCIe x16 interface.

www.techpowerup.com

The 6500 XT is a bad product but the 1630 is the very worst in recent memory. Perhaps only the 1030 DDR4 is worse and only because there was a DDR5 version with a similar, obfuscating name with twice the performance.

Launch price yes, street price no. You were getting 6500 XT for $300 + PCI-e 4.0 as a mandatory and 1630 for $160 + whatever floats your boat.

I don't disagree with 1630 being worse all-around. It's just AMD let it happen.

 

[Luke357]

I have a friend with an HP prebuilt that has an i7 7700, 16 gigs of RAM, and a 180W PSU laying around (too nice to throw away but not new enough for very expensive or tedious upgrades). He doesn't have much money for a rig but wants something to play Fortnite and Rust at modest settings. This card would be the thing to just install in his machine and roll with for atleast 3 years. There is a market for these even if slightly out of the norm.

 

[john_]

Rightfully so. Even Vega and Fury were orders of magnitudes less questionable.

Totally different market segments.

It was launched pretty much silently and was positioned as "perhaps it can play games, we dunno" kinda product, unlike 6500 XT that was quite boldly promoted as a "mining boom killing device and saviour." It also had a more reasonable price and didn't impose performance penalty if you dare using anything slower than PCI-e 4.0.

GTX 1630 was launched AFTER the RX 6500 XT and priced even higher in some cases. I haven't look recently but I could see GTX 1630 selling at a higher price than RX 6400, while being slower. If it is selling at prices or even higher than RX 6500 XT, what are we really discussing here? Are we trying to prove my point in the end of my last post?
RX 6500 XT was announced at a time that pricing was completely ridiculous and did gave a less bad option to people desperate for a new card and not an overpriced second hard option.
GTX 1630 is dead slow no matter the bus. Being already slow on PCIE 4.0 doesn't give extra points to the card for not being even slower on an PCIe 3.0 slot.

This is unlikely. People buying 3050 over 6600 know 3050 is slower but has DLSS to compensate for it but 3050 6 GB sounds like "nah, that's too much even for us."

Already happened with the RTX 3050 8GB vs the RX 66x0/XT. It will happen again because people are educated that "Nvidia Good, AMD bad", no matter the models in comparison.

For a very huge reason. AMD don't try to compete. They just sell overpriced DOA products like Ampere and Ada have never been invented.

Even when AMD was selling the 6000 series against the 3000 series, people where finding any excuse they could to justify going for a pricier and slower Nvidia model over an AMD one. Can we blame AMD for not prioritizing GPUs when the average consumer rejects the idea of even looking at AMD options?
And again you are proving my point here. Blaming AMD for every anti consumer Nvidia choice, will only lead to more expensive Nvidia cards and less interest from AMD to compete. Would we really wait for Intel to come and save us? Let's not forget that Intel is also a premium brand that does business mostly through OEMs, meaning, when their options become really competitive in software and performance, prices will be the same as Nvidia's in the DIY market.

All that doesn't mean that 3056 for anything above $100 isn't hot garbage. It of course is hot garbage. But as far as AMD don't offer anything remotely resembling a proper sub $150 GPU things will look like that.

RX 6600 at under $200 and RX 6500XT/6400 at under $150 are much more logical options than a cut down RTX 3050 at $180. Again trying to throw the blame on AMD? Thank you for proving for a third time my point.
To be fair Intel's A380 at $100 for video playback and A580 for under $200 are also somewhat valid options. Of course drivers are still a thing, but probably Intel will fix that with their next series. And when they release their next series we will also have an indication if they will start moving to a more Nvidia like way of pricing their offerings. They where dropping prices all those months because they where realizing that building stable drivers for a gazillion of different games, is not something that can be done in 1-2 years time.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Launch price yes, street price no. You were getting 6500 XT for $300 + PCI-e 4.0 as a mandatory and 1630 for $160 + whatever floats your boat.

I don't disagree with 1630 being worse all-around. It's just AMD let it happen.

Street price of the 6500 XT when the 1630 was released was $180. When the 6500 XT was released in Jan '22 GPU prices were more than 50% higher than in June '22 and (finally) falling drastically so comparing street prices at those 2 different times is disingenuous and meaningless. Especially as the 6500 XT was MSRP at $200 and not $250 or higher which would have been:

1. Ridiculous
2. still cheaper per fps than the 1630

 

[john_]

Launch price yes, street price no. You were getting 6500 XT for $300 + PCI-e 4.0 as a mandatory and 1630 for $160 + whatever floats your boat.

You are comparing crypto mining street price with post crypto mining street price. And PCIe doesn't play a role with GTX 1630 because it is already ridiculously slow.

I have a friend with an HP prebuilt that has an i7 7700, 16 gigs of RAM, and a 180W PSU laying around (too nice to throw away but not new enough for very expensive or tedious upgrades). He doesn't have much money for a rig but wants something to play Fortnite and Rust at modest settings. This card would be the thing to just install in his machine and roll with for atleast 3 years. There is a market for these even if slightly out of the norm.

I wouldn't put a 75W card next to a 65W CPU when having a 180W PSU. There are other components in there that also need power. Either find a higher wattage PSU before going for a 75W card, or find other GPU options that stay under 50W. They will be older, but the PSU will have some breathing air. Running the PSU at 90-100% capacity while gaming will just kill it eventually.

 

[Macro Device]

Street price of the 6500 XT when the 1630 was released was $180. When the 6500 XT was released in Jan '22 GPU prices were more than 50% higher than in June '22 and (finally) falling drastically so comparing street prices at those 2 different times is disingenuous and meaningless. Especially as the 6500 XT was MSRP at $200 and not $250 or higher which would have been:

1. Ridiculous
2. still cheaper per fps than the 1630

You are comparing crypto mining street price with post crypto mining street price. And PCIe doesn't play a role with GTX 1630 because it is already ridiculously slow.

Oh snap, I was lost in time. My bad.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Thinking about this 3040 3050 6GB a bit more, it's everything the 6500 XT should have been:

96-bit with the corresponding 6GB
75W slot-power only option
x8 PCIe
hardware encoders (I could let that slide in the 6500 XT if it had all the above features)

I like this. But the problems:

The name - it's a 3040. Useless semantics to me but not your average buyer.
2 years too late or 1 node behind. The above features should have happened right after the 3050 and nowadays it should be an Ada GPU.
$180. The problem is this fits the market right now as IMO this should be $150 max (pending performance reviews) but with the 6400 at $130 and the 1650 at $160, freakin $180 fits.

I hate this market.

 

[Luke357]

I wouldn't put a 75W card next to a 65W CPU when having a 180W PSU. There are other components in there that also need power. Either find a higher wattage PSU before going for a 75W card, or find other GPU options that stay under 50W. They will be older, but the PSU will have some breathing air. Running the PSU at 90-100% capacity while gaming will just kill it eventually.

I doubt the CPU will be above 70% utilization most of the time. I also think that the PSU should be fine as HP, Dell, and Lenovo tend to use decent quality PSUs. Worst case scenario I will get a cheap 500W PSU and use it as this machine has standard power connectors.

 

[Pepamami]

yay, E-waste production

 

[john_]

as this machine has standard power connectors

I would upgrade that PSU before inserting any 75W+ card in there.

 

[b1k3rdude]

Pointless.

 

[Ruined Mind]

I wouldn't put a 75W card next to a 65W CPU when having a 180W PSU. There are other components in there that also need power. Either find a higher wattage PSU before going for a 75W card, or find other GPU options that stay under 50W. They will be older, but the PSU will have some breathing air. Running the PSU at 90-100% capacity while gaming will just kill it eventually.

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.