MysterD: even a NVidia RTX 3050 Ti with its low VRAM count of 4GB VRAM (which I'm not fond of b/c of its low VRAM count by today's standards) just would be better than a 610 or 620; you're going to save yourself a lot of these headaches.
MarkoH01: You do know that the RTX series is one of the the latest Nvidia has? So calling that one "even" sounds a bit weird to me. For the record: I use a GTX1060 ... no RTX at all. Also 4GB is not THAT low ... it depends on the resolution you useually use. Lots of games perfectly playable in 1080p i.e.
Okay, let's start here: 1080p60fps is the standard in modern gaming here on PC.
Most gamers playing new stuff are likely aiming for 1080p.
And many PC gamers have the GTX 1060 card.
Also, question - are you using the GTX 1060 3gb or 6gb VRAM version?
Here you go, stats from digital leader Steam on this stuff on their survey for Dec. 2021 -
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam Yes, RTX 3000 series is the latest stuff - but 3050 really lacks VRAM, given what new games are doing on PC; and also what new consoles are doing & supporting (i.e. PS5 and XSX - both support also RT). Newer and future games likely are going to be built around PS5 and XSX as the low-end specs; and of course PC requirements will be similar.
Hell, I'd suggest gamers instead skip the lowly 4gb VRAM on the 3050 laptop cards b/c of the VRAM count and instead go look at even a RTX 2060 (or even better cards in the 2000 series - i.e. 2070 or 2080), provided they can get a solid deal on the 6gb 2060 and find one. It's older since the 3000's are here, so...you could get lucky? Who knows? [shrug]
Most gamers though probably should aim at say a RTX 3060 or better. 3050 is not future-proof, thanks to its low VRAM counts.
What's the point of buying a RTX card and a 3050 laptop, if you can't utilize RTX properly? Might as well pony up at this point and enter 6gb VRAM 3060 laptop turf.
DLSS is going to be the best reason to grab a 3050 laptop; and now DLDSR is also now here too - but it certainly won't be for RT, for which the RTX card's named after. This all's fine for older stuff, of course - but it gets dicey when we talk new stuff and distant-future stuff.
What 3050 is doing here is exactly what NVidia did w/ 10xx cards - they allow you to turn RT on just to see what it looks like (amazing) even if it's slide-showy performance well, but it damn well won't perform that well and won't be worth the while to run it. You'd need to pony-up for the RT in the 2000 series back then (notice how they never made a 3GB or 4GB RTX 2050 then, since they knew it'd be "meh")...and well, now the 3060 and up cards.
And a lot of the newer games easily are in the 4GB VRAM or more at 1080p at decent settings. It gets more VRAM-eating and even worse, when you toss RTX on; just expect to eat-up even more VRAM. RT is intensive, frame-rate killing, and power-hungry. 4GB isn't really efficient, once you chuck RT on w/ newer titles.
To max-out certain games at 1080p, you'll need more than 4GB VRAM. Heck, I had 4GB VRAM on my GTX 970 desktop and my 4GB VRAM on my 960m. Why Nvidia is offering low VRAM counts now is ridiculous, even in the budget sector - especially when the 10xx series did have a nice 6GB VRAM version (mid-range arena right there for the 10xx series). Even back then 4GB VRAM wasn't hot in some cases, as you could easily hit that VRAM wall in games like Dishonored 2, Watch Dogs 1, and Batman AK at 1080p easy.
I had a GTX 1060 laptop with 6GB, but that one's mobo died recently (meh) - in which that 6GB is very nice sweet spot for VRAM count, BTW. Ubi games are notorious for being demanding, unoptimized and/or poor performing - and games like GR: Wildlands, GR: Breakpoint, and some recent AC's could easily go past 4GB VRAM.
And I'm easily over 6GB VRAM-usage on RDR2 here at 1080p, for crying out loud on my RTX 3070 desktop.
I can't even max WD: Legion out on my desktop 3070, provided that there's 8GB of VRAM on that GPU. Would need around 10-11GB VRAM, to max that out at 1080p.