OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£190VRAM:6 GBMemory bus width:96 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):70 W

KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB
6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

40%

4.8

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.8

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 86% of graphics cards
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

▼Worse than 68%
4.8

Technical score

Technical score
4.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

44%

2.8

Performance

24%

2.8

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

▼Worse than 86%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • kfa2-geforce-rtx-3050-low-profile-white-6gb
kfa2-geforce-rtx-3050-low-profile-white-6gb
Where to buy
    N/A~ £190
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB

Based on 176 owners sharing their experience in online comments

74%positive11%mixed15%negative

Owners praise its capable gaming performance and big upgrades, though newer demanding games can reveal its limits.

What owners dislike

  • Newer demanding games often need low settings, and the 4 GB version can show VRAM warnings or refuse to launch.9
  • Some owners get freezes at medium settings, or stutter when VRAM fills up, and one reports frame drops after relaunching a game.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB

Technical score
Technical score
4.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

44%

2.8

Performance

24%

2.8

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

4.8
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

7.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
4,825 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 4,825 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 85.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
2,870 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 2,870 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 78.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
10,749 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 10,749 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 83.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
5,218 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 5,218 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 82.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
6.77 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 6.77 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 80.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
6 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 6 GB of VRAM, which is less than 82.5% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
96 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 96 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 95.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.4% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
168 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 168 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 89.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
14,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 14,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 69.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
1.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 1.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 96.5% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
70 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 70 W, which is lower than that of 93.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
70 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 70 W under peak load, which is lower than 94.2% of graphics cards and equal to 1.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
70 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 70 W, which is lower than that of 94.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
70 W
Show more
Size
169x 69x 34 mm
Length
169 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 169 mm long, which is shorter than 95.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
112 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 112 mm tall, which is shorter than 76.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 3.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
381 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 381 g, which is lighter than 94.8% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more

KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 67.4% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (70 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    70 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 113.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (169 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    169 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 68.2% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (70 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    70 W vs 220 W
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 4x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 2.74x cheaper
    KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£190 vs £520).
    £190 vs £520
  • 2.74x cheaper
    KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£190 vs £520).
    £190 vs £520
  • 4x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 67.4% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (70 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    70 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 68.2% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (70 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    70 W vs 220 W
  • 68.2% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (70 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    70 W vs 220 W
  • 50% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (6 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    6 W vs 12 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 113.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (169 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    169 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 62.4% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (381 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    381 g vs 1,014 g
  • 41.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,470 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,470 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 6 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (6 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    6 GB vs 12 GB
  • 22 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (18 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    18 vs 40
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 45.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,042 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,042 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 112 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (72 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    72 vs 184
  • 22 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (18 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    18 vs 40
  • 72% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (105.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    105.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 38.5% lower sentiment score
    4.8 vs 7.8
  • 3.2% worse value for money
    KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.18 vs 7.4).
    7.18 vs 7.41
  • 41.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,470 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,470 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 22 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (18 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    18 vs 40
  • 45.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,042 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,042 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 112 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (72 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    72 vs 184
  • 22 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (18 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    18 vs 40
  • 72% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (105.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    105.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 70.8% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (47 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    47.04 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 70% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (6.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    6.77 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 72 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (72 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    72 vs 144
  • 52.5% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (10,749 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    10,749 points vs 22,638 points
  • 67.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (4,825 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    4,825 points vs 14,779 points
  • 68.6% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (2,870 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    2,870 points vs 9,148 points
  • 77.1% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (6.8 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    6.77 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 77.1% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.11 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 56.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (5,218 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    5,218 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 6 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (6 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    6 GB vs 12 GB
  • 62.5% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (168 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    168 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 96 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (96 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    96 bit vs 192 bit
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 60% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (8 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    8 nm vs 5 nm
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • 62% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (8,700 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    8,700 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 93.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (1.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    1.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (5 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    5 vs 6
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 8 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (45 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    45 °C vs 37 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB

  • No external power required; runs entirely off the PCIe slot (70W TDP)
  • Compact low-profile design fits in small form factor (SFF) and slim office PCs
  • Quiet operation with low heat output, typically staying below 65-70°C
  • Support for modern NVIDIA features like DLSS, Ray Tracing, and NVENC encoding
  • Significant upgrade for older systems with proprietary power supplies (e.g., Dell Optiplex)
  • Best-in-class performance for single-slot/half-height cards without power connectors

What customers don't like about KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB

  • Poor price-to-performance ratio compared to competitors like the RX 6600
  • Significantly slower (approx. 18-25%) than the original 8GB RTX 3050 model
  • 6GB of VRAM and narrow 96-bit bus limit performance in demanding AAA titles
  • Inconsistent performance at 1080p 'High' settings in newer games without DLSS
  • Ray tracing performance is often too weak to be practical at native resolutions
  • Confusing naming convention as it uses a cut-down chip compared to the 8GB version

Verdict

The KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB is a compact, entry-level graphics card built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture with 2,304 CUDA cores, a base clock of 1042 MHz, and a boost clock of 1470 MHz. It features 6GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 168 GB/s of bandwidth, and includes modern features like ray tracing and DLSS support. Its primary advantages are its small low-profile form factor and a low 70W TDP that requires no external power connectors, making it an ideal upgrade for slim office PCs and SFF builds. However, it faces significant performance drawbacks compared to the standard 8GB model, including reduced clock speeds, lower VRAM, and limited bus width, which can struggle with demanding AAA titles at higher settings.

Compare KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of KFA2 GeForce RTX 3050 Low Profile 6GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found