Rumored Specs of the RTX 3050 Leaked

[Random_Person1234]

Summary

The rumored specs of the RTX 3050 have leaked. This card will likely be the slowest in the RTX 3000 series.

 

Quotes

Quote

 

Quote

The RTX 3050 is expected to feature GA107-300 GPU with 2304 CUDA cores. Such a number of cores would be a significant upgrade over GeForce GTX 1650 (896 CUDAs) and GTX 1650 SUPER (1280 CUDAs)

Quote

The memory configuration of RTX 3050 non-Ti is currently unknown, but XX107 GPUs are usually offered with a 128-bit memory bus, hence 4GB GDDR6 memory is to be expected.

My thoughts

This seems like a good budget card, but if it does only have 4GB of VRAM, that would seem pretty lacking in 2020 for a new release GPU. Also, with all these rumors of new RTX 3000 cards, when will they finally have good stock for cards already on the market?

 

Sources

https://twitter.com/kopite7kimi/status/1325592401780432897

 

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3050-expected-to-feature-2304-cuda-cores

[samcool55]

4 Gigs, how slow is it going to be?

An RX 580 4GB seems a nice balance between VRAM and gpu power, throwing more gpu power at it will just cause you to run out of vram faster and tbh 4 gigs was enough a few years ago and today, but I doubt it will be enough for the next few years if matched with a decent gpu.

 

Let's assume it's 1660 performance, there's a reason why the 1660 has 6GB and not 4...

[Yea, i use windows, W]

2 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

4 Gigs, how slow is it going to be?

An RX 580 4GB seems a nice balance between VRAM and gpu power, throwing more gpu power at it will just cause you to run out of vram faster and tbh 4 gigs was enough a few years ago and today, but I doubt it will be enough for the next few years if matched with a decent gpu.

 

Let's assume it's 1660 performance, there's a reason why the 1660 has 6GB and not 4...

i think the extra few bucks for the *SUPER* version of the 1660 are worth it

just my opinion tho

[VixAAT]

22 minutes ago, Random_Person1234 said:

Summary

The rumored specs of the RTX 3050 have leaked. This card will likely be the slowest in the RTX 3000 series.

 

Quotes

My thoughts

This seems like a good budget card, but if it does only have 4GB of VRAM, that would seem pretty lacking in 2020 for a new release GPU. Also, with all these rumors of new RTX 3000 cards, when will they finally have good stock for cards already on the market?

 

Sources

https://twitter.com/kopite7kimi/status/1325592401780432897

 

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3050-expected-to-feature-2304-cuda-cores

In my opinion this seems un-realistic naming from Nvidia as consumers might think it is worse than the 2060

[Guest]

The rumored numbers with 2304 Ampere CUDA cores and 90W TDP would make this card about as fast as a 1660, that's compared to how Ampere scaled with the 3070 and 3080 so far.
So anything higher than $200 would just be plain stupid, $170-$180 would be okay, ofc the lower the better.

[steelo]

1 hour ago, Random_Person1234 said:

Summary

The rumored specs of the RTX 3050 have leaked. This card will likely be the slowest in the RTX 3000 series.

 

Quotes

My thoughts

This seems like a good budget card, but if it does only have 4GB of VRAM, that would seem pretty lacking in 2020 for a new release GPU. Also, with all these rumors of new RTX 3000 cards, when will they finally have good stock for cards already on the market?

 

Sources

https://twitter.com/kopite7kimi/status/1325592401780432897

 

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3050-expected-to-feature-2304-cuda-cores

So will this actually be more powerful than a RX 570 or RX 580 from 4 years ago that one can buy for half the price?

[Shreyas1]

But why RTX though? It would be way more appealing if they didn't implement RTX and brought the price down significantly

[TrainFan475]

wtf a 4gb card with RTX? Why.. just why.. would you do that

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Shreyas1 said:

But why RTX though? It would be way more appealing if they didn't implement RTX and brought the price down significantly

Because they don't want to segment the market and having any gpus without the new hardware. Idk maybe it's for raytraced minecraft if that is enough power for that. Tbh I wouldn't be surprised if the 3050 had raytracing that is on par with the 2060 so it might be ok for some applications and the new hardware does do more than just raytracing. It can do dlss which on a budget card does seem quite appealing imo. 

[RejZoR]

8GB really should have been a standard now. I had 3GB of RAM on graphic card (HD7950) back in 2012. 8 years ago! Adding only 1GB to that 8 years later is just pathetic, even for "low end" card.

[Bombastinator]

90wtgp means card will require cables.  The whole point of the 1650 was that it didn’t require cables.  

Edited November 10, 2020 by Bombastinator

[Dabombinable]

4GB isn't enough for my old GTX 970, how is a far more powerful card going to get by with the same? The vRAM limit means that you wouldn't get even close in a fair few newer games at 1080p to maxing settings.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

4GB isn't enough for my old GTX 970, how is a far more powerful card going to get by with the same? The vRAM limit means that you wouldn't get even close in a fair few newer games at 1080p to maxing settings.

970 never really had 4gb to begin with.  It was really 3.5.  I make a policy of taking rumors as “someone thinks this might happen” rather than “this is going to happen”. There seems to be a lot of unlikely with this particular one. 

[Dabombinable]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

970 never really had 4gb to begin with.  It was really 3.5.  I make a policy of taking rumors as “someone thinks this might happen” rather than “this is going to happen”. There seems to be a lot of unlikely with this particular one. 

I still see 4GB worth of GDDR5 chips on mine. Where Nvidia was misleading was the memory bandwidth - it wasn't 224GB/sec overall but 196GB/sec+28GB/sec.

[TetraSky]

I for one would welcome a cheaper video card. If it really is cheap.

 

Though 4GB is... kinda low. Would've preferred at least 6GB or better yes, 8GB. 

 

But right now I'm more interested in the 3060, considering AMD has nothing in that price range (that's new).

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

I still see 4GB worth of GDDR5 chips on mine. Where Nvidia was misleading was the memory bandwidth - it wasn't 224GB/sec overall but 196GB/sec+28GB/sec.

Yes you do.  Mine too.  People thought it had 4gb for almost a year after its release.  You can even access that last half gb.  The problem though is because of architecture stuff it does it so very very slowly that it’s best not to use it.   Was a big drama thing.  May have been a lawsuit. 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

8GB really should have been a standard now. I had 3GB of RAM on graphic card (HD7950) back in 2012. 8 years ago! Adding only 1GB to that 8 years later is just pathetic, even for "low end" card.

I agree but part of me thinks that this will be ok if you are using dlss. I mean using dlss decreases vram usage so it could be possible to run newer titles without issues with less vram than previously. Granted this is based on dlss decreasing memory requirements at high resolution and i am unsure if it will be as big of a decrease at 1080p. I am sorta looking forward to seeing how well the new card performs with dlss because I think dlss would be great for lower end cards.

[schwellmo92]

8 hours ago, ONOTech said:

Seems like NVIDIA will price the 3060 (Ti) around $400, meaning the 3050 will probably arrive at $250. I really hope I'm proven wrong, because an x50 class card for that price makes me sad  I'm guessing RTX 2060 performance which would ROCK if the priced correctly. The 5600 XT already does that at $280.

 

Maybe the 26xx or 17xx (whatever the heck NVIDIA decides) will bring value to the budget area because I'm not holding my breath for the RTX series cards to do it.

It will be more inline with a 1660.

 

8 hours ago, TheAverageGamer said:

In my opinion this seems un-realistic naming from Nvidia as consumers might think it is worse than the 2060

It definitely will be worse than a 2060.

[thorhammerz]

6 hours ago, TrainFan2020 said:

wtf a 4gb card with RTX? Why.. just why.. would you do that

3 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

4GB isn't enough for my old GTX 970, how is a far more powerful card going to get by with the same? The vRAM limit means that you wouldn't get even close in a fair few newer games at 1080p to maxing settings.

Crippling the performance (intentional or not) on a xx50 tier card with VRAM configurations is a good outcome, yes? It isn't even particularly costly if the yields for the GPU dies are good enough, and they leave themselves room to release a higher VRAM model in the future if segmentation needs dictate a need to do so.

 

[RejZoR]

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I agree but part of me thinks that this will be ok if you are using dlss. I mean using dlss decreases vram usage so it could be possible to run newer titles without issues with less vram than previously. Granted this is based on dlss decreasing memory requirements at high resolution and i am unsure if it will be as big of a decrease at 1080p. I am sorta looking forward to seeing how well the new card performs with dlss because I think dlss would be great for lower end cards.

To rely entirely on DLSS is pointless because games that support it are so rare it's basically non existent feature. It's nice when available, but essentially non existent. Also be aware that at 1080p resolution DLSS renders things at 500something-p and despite all the wizardry behind it, it shows. DLSS is really meant for 4K resolution where it renders at 1080p iirc and creates really good results.

[Dabombinable]

7 hours ago, thorhammerz said:

Crippling the performance (intentional or not) on a xx50 tier card with VRAM configurations is a good outcome, yes? It isn't even particularly costly if the yields for the GPU dies are good enough, and they leave themselves room to release a higher VRAM model in the future if segmentation needs dictate a need to do so.

 

Point is - the experience in newer titles is going to be hampered. And you do need even more vRAM with RTX of vs off from what I understand.

[porina]

Was the last GPU to be released in both 4GB and 8GB version the RX 580? Or has there been anything more recent than that? Would be interesting to see where and what difference in performance that is with today's games, as opposed to the ones that were around when it launched since that was a while ago. I know, this introduces another variable in that AMD and nvidia may behave differently. I guess there's also the 1060 3GB/6GB thing but the core wasn't the same on that.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, porina said:

Was the last GPU to be released in both 4GB and 8GB version the RX 580

The 5500XT came in both 4GB and 8GB. Most reviews at the time noted that the 8GB version was not worth it as it was $30 more.

Edit: I guess I have misremembered a bit. 

8GB seems to matter in some titles by quite a bit. It just was overall not a greatly priced product at the time.

[jubair194]

Would get for 8K use as a monitor, if it has HDMI 2.1 VRR. For that, there is a good use case, some people don't play games.  

[thorhammerz]

6 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Point is - the experience in newer titles is going to be hampered. And you do need even more vRAM with RTX of vs off from what I understand.

I totally get that. I'm just saying, from NVDA's perspective (which is the one that matters for the purposes of deciding what configuration a consumer card gets at a given price point), hampering performance, especially with RTX, on an xx50-tier card is probably not an unwanted outcome, given their incentive to induce people to pay for the more expensive xx60/xx70 variants for the more enjoyable experience.