Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection [mPixels/s], CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation [Frames/s], CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex [Frames/s], CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition [Frames/s], CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining [mHash/s], GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen [Frames], GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan [Frames], GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex [Frames], GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen [Fps], GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan [Fps], GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex [Fps], 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Buy on Amazon
Buy on Ebay
Buy on Amazon
Buy on Ebay
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year[s] 11 month[s] later
- Around 1% higher boost clock speed: 1283 - 1703 MHz vs 1680 MHz
- 2x more pipelines: 3840 vs 1920
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 8 nm vs 12 nm
- Around 39% lower typical power consumption: 60 - 115 Watt vs 160 Watt
- Around 27% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 89210 vs 70097
- Around 51% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection [mPixels/s]: 332.059 vs 220.337
- Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation [Frames/s]: 3963.297 vs 3131.344
- Around 22% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex [Frames/s]: 26.631 vs 21.852
- Around 32% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition [Frames/s]: 179.028 vs 135.923
- Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen [Frames]: 21278 vs 20094
- Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan [Frames]: 8913 vs 7442
- Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex [Frames]: 8054 vs 6714
- Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen [Fps]: 21278 vs 20094
- Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan [Fps]: 8913 vs 7442
- Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex [Fps]: 8054 vs 6714
- Around 10% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 8319 vs 7543
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
- Around 52% higher core clock speed: 1365 MHz vs 900 MHz
- Around 11% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 13904 vs 12570
- Around 35% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 750 vs 554
- Around 24% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining [mHash/s]: 1141.283 vs 917.553
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
| PassMark - G3D Mark | ||
| PassMark - G2D Mark | ||
| Geekbench - OpenCL | ||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection [mPixels/s] | ||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation [Frames/s] | ||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex [Frames/s] | ||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition [Frames/s] | ||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining [mHash/s] | ||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen [Frames] | ||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan [Frames] | ||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex [Frames] | ||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen [Fps] | ||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan [Fps] | ||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex [Fps] | ||
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score |
Compare specifications [specs]
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
- Core clock speed 960
- Max video memory 6144 MB
- Memory type GDDR6
- Memory clock speed 14000
- Maximum resolution
- Interface PCIe 4.0 x16
- Core clock speed 900
- Max video memory 6144 MB
- Memory type GDDR6
- Memory clock speed 14000
- Maximum resolution
Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
| Place in performance rating | 114 | 93 |
| Value for money | 10.75 | no data |
| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |
| GPU code name | N18E-G1 TU106 | GN20-E3 GA106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2019 [3 years ago] | 4 January 2021 [1 year ago] |
| Price now | $1250 | no data |
Value for money
To get the index we compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1920 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 960 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1283 - 1703 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,800 million | 13,250 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Thermal design power [TDP] | 115 Watt | 125 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 144.0 | 171.0 |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile and GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
Memory
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones [so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips]. OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate [12_1] | 12 Ultimate [12_2] |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 8.6 |
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Ice Storm GPU
- Passmark
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 [the last being done in 4K resolution if possible], and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 1080p | 104 | 105 |
| 1440p | 66 | 71 |
| 4K | 41 | 46 |
1920x1080
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 91 | 45−50 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 71 | 75 |
| Battlefield 5 | 104 | 45−50 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 97 | 45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 62 | 76 |
| Far Cry 5 | 96 | 108 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 82 | 96 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108 | 45−50 |
| Hitman 3 | 120 | 120 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 87 | 96 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 82 | 45−50 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 93 | 106 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 86 | 81 |
1920x1080
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 72 | 45−50 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 56 | 63 |
| Battlefield 5 | 104 | 141 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 83 | 45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 48 | 64 |
| Far Cry 5 | 91 | 102 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 79 | 102 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107 | 45−50 |
| Hitman 3 | 101 | 114 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 67 | 77 |
| Metro Exodus | 56 | 82 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45 | 56 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 81 | 92 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 111 | 141 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 70 | 71 |
1920x1080
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 50 | 45−50 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 48 | 55 |
| Battlefield 5 | 98 | 131 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41 | 55 |
| Far Cry 5 | 84 | 97 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 72 | 92 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88 | 45−50 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60 | 75 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 38 | 46 |
2560x1440
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 63 | 45−50 |
| Hitman 3 | 62 | 79 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45 | 61 |
| Metro Exodus | 35 | 50 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 29 | 40 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 49 | 68 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25 | 34 |
2560x1440
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40 | 45−50 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 38 | 47 |
| Battlefield 5 | 75 | 104 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 28 | 36 |
| Far Cry 5 | 63 | 82 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45 | 85 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 45−50 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 28 | 34 |
3840x2160
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 35 | 45−50 |
| Hitman 3 | 34 | 49 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 25 | 40 |
| Metro Exodus | 40−45 | 31 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20 | 22 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 25 | 42 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39 | 57 |
3840x2160
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25 | 45−50 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 22 | 11 |
| Battlefield 5 | 42 | 63 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13 | 17 |
| Far Cry 5 | 33 | 44 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45 | 50 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 45−50 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 15 | 19 |
| Performance rating | 42.71 | 47.21 |
| Novelty | 6 January 2019 | 4 January 2021 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1920 | 3840 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Thermal design power [TDP] | 115 Watt | 125 Watt |
Judging by the results of synthetic and gaming tests, Technical City recommends
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile
since it shows better performance.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
We selected several comparisons of video cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more probable options to consider.
Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.