G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

GeForce RTX 3050 6GB

2024

Why buy it

✅+1376.5% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 992.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 63.6 vs 5.8 G3D/$ ($169 MSRP vs $125 MSRP).
✅Access to DLSS 2 Super Resolution (2020).
✅1100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 512 MB).
✅More future proof: Ampere (2020−2025) on 8nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer clear downsides in this head-to-head, aside from the usual pricing and availability swings.

GRID K140Q

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $44 less on MSRP ($125 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (728 vs 10,749).
❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌No DLSS support; it relies on Upscaling support instead.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.8 vs 63.6 G3D/$ ($125 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).

GeForce RTX 3050 6GB

2024

GRID K140Q

2013

Why buy it

✅+1376.5% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 992.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 63.6 vs 5.8 G3D/$ ($169 MSRP vs $125 MSRP).
✅Access to DLSS 2 Super Resolution (2020).
✅1100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 512 MB).
✅More future proof: Ampere (2020−2025) on 8nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Why buy it

✅Costs $44 less on MSRP ($125 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Fewer clear downsides in this head-to-head, aside from the usual pricing and availability swings.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (728 vs 10,749).
❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌No DLSS support; it relies on Upscaling support instead.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.8 vs 63.6 G3D/$ ($125 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce RTX 3050 6GB better than GRID K140Q?

Yes. GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 10,749 vs 728 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is a 2024 card with DLSS Super Resolution, while GRID K140Q is a 2013 model from an older generation with no meaningful modern upscaling stack. So this is not really a tight same-tier comparison. It is more a modern card against an older, weaker alternative.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2024 generation instead of 2013, 1376.5% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 6 GB instead of 512 MB, and better upscaling support with DLSS 2 Super Resolution (2020) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack. That leaves it with more room for heavier textures, tougher ray tracing loads, and higher-end 1440p or 4K gaming over the next few years.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is the smarter buy by a wide margin. GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is about 35.2% more expensive on MSRP at $169 MSRP versus $125 MSRP, and you are getting 1376.5% higher G3D Mark. GRID K140Q really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

Is GRID K140Q still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

No, not for a fresh gaming build. GRID K140Q is 2013 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM, 728 in G3D Mark, and no meaningful modern upscaling stack. That is simply too far behind to be an easy modern recommendation.

Games Benchmarks

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Benchmark Check

GRID K140Q Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce RTX 3050 6GB	GRID K140Q
1080p
low	109 FPS	33 FPS
medium	92 FPS	26 FPS
high	77 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	45 FPS	16 FPS
1440p
low	95 FPS	25 FPS
medium	81 FPS	20 FPS
high	59 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	34 FPS	12 FPS
4K
low	30 FPS	16 FPS
medium	28 FPS	13 FPS
high	19 FPS	11 FPS
ultra	16 FPS	8 FPS

Open GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Open GRID K140Q

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce RTX 3050 6GB	GRID K140Q
1080p
low	174 FPS	33 FPS
medium	149 FPS	26 FPS
high	118 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	16 FPS
1440p
low	129 FPS	25 FPS
medium	106 FPS	20 FPS
high	83 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	62 FPS	12 FPS
4K
low	74 FPS	16 FPS
medium	62 FPS	12 FPS
high	48 FPS	9 FPS
ultra	34 FPS	7 FPS

Open GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Open GRID K140Q

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce RTX 3050 6GB	GRID K140Q
1080p
low	484 FPS	33 FPS
medium	387 FPS	26 FPS
high	322 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	242 FPS	16 FPS
1440p
low	363 FPS	25 FPS
medium	290 FPS	20 FPS
high	242 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	181 FPS	12 FPS
4K
low	242 FPS	16 FPS
medium	193 FPS	13 FPS
high	161 FPS	11 FPS
ultra	121 FPS	8 FPS

Open GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Open GRID K140Q

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce RTX 3050 6GB	GRID K140Q
1080p
low	243 FPS	33 FPS
medium	210 FPS	26 FPS
high	171 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	144 FPS	16 FPS
1440p
low	185 FPS	25 FPS
medium	166 FPS	20 FPS
high	131 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	109 FPS	12 FPS
4K
low	104 FPS	16 FPS
medium	87 FPS	13 FPS
high	69 FPS	11 FPS
ultra	55 FPS	8 FPS

Open GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Open GRID K140Q

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce RTX 3050 6GB and GRID K140Q

GeForce RTX 3050 6GB

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 2 2024. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 1042 MHz to 1470 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 70W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 18 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,749 points. Launch price was $179.

GRID K140Q

The GRID K140Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 728 points. Launch price was $469.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB scores 10,749 versus the GRID K140Q's 728 — the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB leads by 1376.5%. The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is built on Ampere while the GRID K140Q uses Kepler, both on 8 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 2,304 (GeForce RTX 3050 6GB) vs 1,536 (GRID K140Q). Raw compute: 6.774 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 3050 6GB) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K140Q).

Feature	GeForce RTX 3050 6GB	GRID K140Q
G3D Mark Score	10,749+1377%	728
Architecture	Ampere	Kepler
Process Node	8 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	2304+50%	1536
Compute (TFLOPS)	6.774 TFLOPS+196%	2.289 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	72	128+78%
L1 Cache	2.3 MB+1669%	0.13 MB
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The GRID K140Q relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce RTX 3050 6GB	GRID K140Q
Upscaling Tech	DLSS 2 Super Resolution	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the GRID K140Q has 512 MB. The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB offers 1100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 96-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce RTX 3050 6GB) vs 0.5 MB (GRID K140Q) — the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce RTX 3050 6GB	GRID K140Q
VRAM Capacity	6 GB+1100%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Bus Width	96-bit+50%	64-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	0.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (GeForce RTX 3050 6GB) vs 11_0 (GRID K140Q). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.

Feature	GeForce RTX 3050 6GB	GRID K140Q
DirectX	12 Ultimate+9%	11_0
Max Displays	4	0

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (5th Gen) (GeForce RTX 3050 6GB) vs NVENC 3rd Gen (GRID K140Q). Decoder: NVDEC (7th Gen) vs NVDEC 1st Gen.

Feature	GeForce RTX 3050 6GB	GRID K140Q
Encoder	NVENC (5th Gen)	NVENC 3rd Gen
Decoder	NVDEC (7th Gen)	NVDEC 1st Gen
Codecs	H.264,HEVC,AV1 (Decode Only)	—

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB draws 70W versus the GRID K140Q's 225W — a 105.1% difference. The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce RTX 3050 6GB) vs 350W (GRID K140Q). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 160mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots.

Feature	GeForce RTX 3050 6GB	GRID K140Q
TDP	70W-69%	225W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	160mm	267mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	75°C	—
Perf/Watt	153.6+4700%	3.2

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB launched at $169 MSRP, while the GRID K140Q launched at $125. The GRID K140Q costs 26% less ($44 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 63.6 (GeForce RTX 3050 6GB) vs 5.8 (GRID K140Q) — the GeForce RTX 3050 6GB offers 996.6% better value. The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2013).