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

Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£340VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):130 W

Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 6 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC
6.5/10

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components

40%

5.3

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

5.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 80% 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 68%
5.3

Technical score

Technical score
5.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

3.4

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

9.3

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 80%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 10
✕
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
6 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 60%
?

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
  • palit-geforce-rtx-3050-dual-oc
palit-geforce-rtx-3050-dual-oc
Where to buy
    N/A~ £340
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC

Based on 6

Reviewers like its ray tracing and DLSS support, solid gaming performance, quiet fans and modest power draw, with few complaints.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC

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 Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC

Technical score
Technical score
5.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components:

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

3.4

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

9.3

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity

5.3
Reviews score
8.1
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

7.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
6,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 6,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 81.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
3,609 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 3,609 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 76.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
12,522 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 12,522 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 80.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
5,985 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 5,985 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 79% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
9.33 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 9.33 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 74.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% 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
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
224 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 224 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 83.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.5% 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
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% 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
What reviewers say
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
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
130 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 130 W, which is lower than that of 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
142 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 142 W under peak load, which is lower than 79.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
550 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 550 W PSU, which is lower than that of 61.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
130 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 130 W, which is lower than that of 81.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
130 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
245x 119x 40 mm
Length
245 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 245 mm long, which is shorter than 71.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.8% of graphics cards.
Height
119 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 119 mm tall, which is shorter than 65.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.4% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
800 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 800 g, which is lighter than 70.2% of Graphics cards and equal to 1.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 39.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (130 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    130 W vs 215 W
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    6 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 37.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (245 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    245 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 40.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (130 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    130 W vs 220 W
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • Supports LHR limiting
    This graphics card supports an LHR limiter, while the average graphics card does not. 7.5% of Graphics cards support one.
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    6 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • Supports LHR limiting
    This graphics card supports an LHR limiter, while the average graphics card does not. 7.5% of Graphics cards support one.
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 39.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (130 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    130 W vs 215 W
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 40.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (130 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    130 W vs 220 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 37.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (245 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    245 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 6 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (119 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    119 mm vs 125 mm
  • 27.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,822 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,822 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 20 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    20 vs 40
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 104 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (80 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    80 vs 184
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 20 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    20 vs 40
  • 61.4% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (145.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    145.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 32.1% lower sentiment score
    5.3 vs 7.8
  • 3.1% worse value for money
    Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.19 vs 7.4).
    7.19 vs 7.41
  • 27.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,822 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,822 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 20 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    20 vs 40
  • 104 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (80 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    80 vs 184
  • 20 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    20 vs 40
  • 61.4% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (145.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    145.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 63.9% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (58.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    58.3 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
  • 19.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,552 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,552 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 58.7% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (9.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    9.33 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 64 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (80 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    80 vs 144
  • 44.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (12,522 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    12,522 points vs 22,638 points
  • 56% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (6,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    6,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 60.5% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3,609 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    3,609 points vs 9,148 points
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    January 2022
    2022 vs 2023
  • 70.8% 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.
    0.14 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 50.4% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (5,985 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    5,985 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 68.4% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (9.3 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    9.33 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 50% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (224 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    224 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 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
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • 47.6% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (12,000 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    12,000 million vs 22,900 million
  • 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
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 6 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (73 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    73 °C vs 67 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
guru3d.com
≈ estimated
26/01/2022
Lab test · Noise and overclocking
Verdict
The Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC is a quiet, well-clocked card for Full HD, though stock shortages are its main drawback.
8.0
club386.com
≈ estimated
26/01/2022
Lab test · Entry RTX card
Verdict
The Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC is a quiet, cool 1080p card with 8GB of memory, but hard-to-find stock is its biggest drawback.
8.2
pinoyrigenthusiasts.com
✓ explicit
09/03/2022
Hands-on test · 1080p gaming
Verdict
The Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC is a decent 1080p card for esports and RTX games, and a workable starter for 3D and video editing.
9.0
gadgetpilipinas.net
≈ estimated
11/04/2022
First look · Cooling and lighting
Verdict
The Palit RTX 3050 Dual OC is a quiet, well-built RTX card with ray tracing and DLSS, though its lighting and overclocking both need the ThunderMaster software.
7.0
igorslab.de
≈ estimated
26/01/2022
Lab test · Cooler and power
Verdict
The Palit RTX 3050 Dual OC handles Full HD gaming well and WQHD on medium settings with DLSS Quality, but its oversized cooler looks like overkill for a small chip.
8.0
levelup.com
≈ estimated
11/05/2022
Lab test · 1080p and 1440p gaming
Verdict
The Palit RTX 3050 Dual OC suits 1080p gaming at high settings, but 1440p needs heavy compromises and ray tracing without DLSS falls short.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC

  • Effective and quiet cooling system featuring two 90mm fans and a 0dB silent mode for light workloads
  • Solid 1080p gaming performance, especially when utilizing NVIDIA DLSS for frame rate boosts
  • Generous 8GB GDDR6 VRAM compared to some competitors in its class
  • Premium build quality for a budget card, including a full metal backplate with honeycomb ventilation
  • Low power consumption (130W) making it compatible with modest 550W power supplies
  • Factory overclocked out of the box with additional headroom for manual overclocking

What customers don't like about Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC

  • Poor price-to-performance ratio compared to rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 6600
  • Mediocre ray-tracing performance; struggling to maintain high frame rates with RT enabled
  • Limited to a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which can cause minor performance drops on older PCIe 3.0 systems
  • Plastic backplate on some models acts more as a brace than an active cooling component
  • Noticeable performance gap behind the more powerful RTX 3060

Verdict

The Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC is a factory-overclocked graphics card built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, featuring 2560 CUDA cores and a boosted clock speed of 1822 MHz. It is equipped with 8GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 128-bit bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 224 GB/s while maintaining a modest 130W TDP. Key characteristics include a dual 90mm fan cooling system with 0-dB silent technology for quiet operation and a vented backplate for improved airflow. Its primary pros are its solid 1080p gaming performance, support for Ray Tracing and DLSS, and efficient power usage that requires only a 550W power supply. However, main cons include its limited PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and relatively high launch price compared to more powerful previous-generation alternatives.

Compare Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC 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 Palit GeForce RTX 3050 Dual OC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found