Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
Turning on ray tracing with the medium quality setting + DLSS dropped the average frame rate to 60 fps, which is still very playale, but personally I'd rather play the game with a higher quality preset and perhaps leave DLSS enabled. is an ugly affair for the 6500 XT and it's disappointing to see that while the 4GB RX 570 can hit 60 fps and a very playable experience, the 6500 XT using PCIe 3.0 was reduced to 36 fps. The RTX 3050 had no issue crushing that result with 225 fps on average, making it just 11% slower than the RTX 2060 and 14% faster than the GTX 1660 Super. Unbelievably, it was 92% faster than the 6500 XT, and let's not even bother with the PCIe 3.0 result for that GPU. Though that is a little unfair because the Ampere architecture at the heart of the RTX 3050 is fundamentally better than that of the Turing GPU at the heart of the GTX 1660 Ti. Again, the same can be said of the RDNA 2 tech beating beneath the RX 6500 XT's oversized coolers, when compared to the Graphics Core Next (GCN) of the RX 480.
It was also 24% faster than the 6500 XT and dropping the Radeon graphics card down to PCIe 3.0 only extended the margin to 27%, so you could argue that this is a good result for the Radeon. The same was true of the RX 6500 XT, with FidelityFX Super Resolution, too. But its severely restricted frame buffer means game performance is still pretty weak even with FSR enabled. It's also not as effective a solution as Nvidia's hardware-based DLSS tech. I am a huge fan of DLSS, however, and it does mean that the RTX 3050 isn't just a good 1080p gaming GPU, it's actually capable of running happily on a 1440p display too. Though DLSS isn't in every game and Nvidia's new game-agnostic Nvidia Image Scaling (roughly analogous to FSR) is available to its older GPUs, too.
Packs a Punch
The RTX 3050 was 52% faster than the 6500 XT at 1080p using the second highest quality preset with 141 fps on average. PCIe 3.0 completely crippled the 6500 XT and now the RTX 3050 is seen to be 114% faster, and I should note I got the exact same result using PCIe 3.0 with the RTX 3050. Testing with Far Cry 6, which doesn't support DLSS, sees the RTX 3050 able to comfortably break the 60 fps barrier with ray tracing fully enabled. It was slower than the much more expensive RX 6600, but whereas it was 28% slower without RT enabled, it was just 14% slower with it enabled. Those 2,560 CUDA cores in the RTX 3050 are split between 20 SMs which also then delivers 20 RT cores and 80 Tensor cores. It's those last two specs that separate the RTX 3050 from its GTX 1660 Ti brethren and ought to make it a far more tempting choice for the mainstream gamer. The RT cores are what allow for ray tracing and the Tensor Cores then allow you to enable DLSS to make ray tracing actually playable at a decent frame rate, all thanks to the magic of AI-powered super sampling.
Details about the extent of our regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority are available from us on request.
With the 6500 XT currently selling for at least 35% over the MSRP, we're expecting the RTX 3050 to come in at a much larger 80% premium, but hopefully it will be less than that. The RTX 3050 blasted past that result with 87 fps on average, edging it slightly ahead of the GTX 1660 Super this time. That made it 34% faster than the 6500 XT or 85% faster when limiting the 6500 XT to PCIe 3.0. A super easy win here for Nvidia.
Great Deal 
New Comment