Component comparison
GeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce RTX 4080
GeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce RTX 4080 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 3050
- + Die size (mm²) (+179 mm²)
B
GeForce RTX 4080
- + Release year (+2)
- + VRAM (GB) (+8 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+750 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+524 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+128 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+35 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-4 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+37,200M)
- + CUDA cores (+7680)
- + TMUs (+240)
- + ROPs (+80)
- + RT cores (+60)
- + Tensor cores (+240)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+43.24 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+237.62 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+675.55 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+24.8)
- + PassMark (overall) (+12875)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+14037)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+29482)
- + Normalized score (+9.7)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 3050
|
Component B
GeForce RTX 4080
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2021 | 2023 (+2) |
| VRAM (GB) | 4 GB | 12 GB (+8 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 2250 MHz (+750 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 192 GB/s | 716 GB/s (+524 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit | 256 bit (+128 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 75 W | 110 W (+35 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 8 nm | 4 nm (-4 nm) |
| Transistors (M) | 8,700M | 45,900M (+37,200M) |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² (+179 mm²) | 379 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1065 MHz | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1343 MHz | — |
| CUDA cores | 2,048 | 9,728 (+7680) |
| TMUs | 64 | 304 (+240) |
| ROPs | 32 | 112 (+80) |
| RT cores | 16 | 76 (+60) |
| Tensor cores | 64 | 304 (+240) |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 5.50 TFLOPS | 48.74 TFLOPS (+43.24 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 42.98 GPixel/s | 280.60 GPixel/s (+237.62 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 85.95 GTexel/s | 761.50 GTexel/s (+675.55 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 17.0 | 41.8 (+24.8) |
| PassMark (overall) | 11,878 | 24,753 (+12875) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 4,497 | 18,534 (+14037) |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 11,949 | 41,431 (+29482) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 63,465 | — |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 62,164 | — |
| Normalized score | 63.1 | 72.8 (+9.7) |
Only in component B
CUDA
DLSS
ray_tracing
In both
ReBAR
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 3050 | GeForce RTX 4080 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assassin's Creed Mirage | 55 FPS | 176 FPS | 220% (B) |
| Avatar Frontiers of Pandora | 32 FPS | 111 FPS | 246.9% (B) |
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 45 FPS | 122 FPS | 171.1% (B) |
| Battlefield 5 | 93 FPS | 160 FPS | 72% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170 FPS | 290 FPS | 70.6% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66 FPS | 149 FPS | 125.8% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 1.6 | 46 FPS | 105 FPS | 128.3% (B) |
| Dota 2 | 118 FPS | 178 FPS | 50.8% (B) |
| F1 22 | 86 FPS | 186 FPS | 116.3% (B) |
| F1 23 | 87 FPS | 227 FPS | 160.9% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 68 FPS | 171 FPS | 151.5% (B) |
| Final Fantasy XV Benchmark | 44 FPS | 129 FPS | 193.2% (B) |
| Fortnite | 110 FPS | 270 FPS | 145.5% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90 FPS | 230 FPS | 155.6% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87 FPS | 249 FPS | 186.2% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| GTA V | 95 FPS | 165 FPS | 73.7% (B) |
| Metro Exodus | 49 FPS | 146 FPS | 198% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 50 FPS | 170 FPS | 240% (B) |
| Returnal | 34 FPS | 114 FPS | 235.3% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 81 FPS | 334 FPS | 312.3% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 71 FPS | 246 FPS | 246.5% (B) |
| Tiny Tina's Wonderlands | 56 FPS | 167 FPS | 198.2% (B) |
| Valorant | 150 FPS | 300 FPS | 100% (B) |
| X-Plane 11.11 | 62 FPS | 89 FPS | 43.5% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 4080 wins 21 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).