Component comparison
GeForce RTX 4080 vs GeForce MX550
GeForce RTX 4080 vs GeForce MX550 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 4080
- + Release year (+2)
- + VRAM (GB) (+10 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+750 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+620 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+192 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+85 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-8 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+41,200M)
- + CUDA cores (+8704)
- + TMUs (+272)
- + ROPs (+96)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+46.04 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+259.48 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+719.26 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+9.0)
- + PassMark (overall) (+20334)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+16064)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+35305)
- + Normalized score (+23.7)
B
GeForce MX550
- + Die size (mm²) (+179 mm²)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 4080
|
Component B
GeForce MX550
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2023 (+2) | 2021 |
| VRAM (GB) | 12 GB (+10 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 2250 MHz (+750 MHz) | 1500 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 716 GB/s (+620 GB/s) | 96 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 256 bit (+192 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 110 W (+85 W) | 25 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 4 nm (-8 nm) | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 45,900M (+41,200M) | 4,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 379 mm² | 200 mm² (+179 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1320 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 9,728 (+8704) | 1,024 |
| TMUs | 304 (+272) | 32 |
| ROPs | 112 (+96) | 16 |
| RT cores | 76 | — |
| Tensor cores | 304 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 48.74 TFLOPS (+46.04 TFLOPS) | 2.70 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 280.60 GPixel/s (+259.48 GPixel/s) | 21.12 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 761.50 GTexel/s (+719.26 GTexel/s) | 42.24 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 41.8 (+9.0) | 32.8 |
| PassMark (overall) | 24,753 (+20334) | 4,419 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 18,534 (+16064) | 2,470 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 41,431 (+35305) | 6,126 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 34,068 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 32,369 |
| Normalized score | 72.8 (+23.7) | 49.1 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 4080 | GeForce MX550 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 160 FPS | 45 FPS | +255.6% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 290 FPS | 55 FPS | +427.3% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 149 FPS | 21 FPS | +609.5% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 178 FPS | 111 FPS | +60.4% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 171 FPS | 45 FPS | +280% (A) |
| Fortnite | 270 FPS | 60 FPS | +350% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230 FPS | 45 FPS | +411.1% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 249 FPS | 47 FPS | +429.8% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 146 FPS | 21 FPS | +595.2% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 170 FPS | 21 FPS | +709.5% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 334 FPS | 50 FPS | +568% (A) |
| Valorant | 300 FPS | 95 FPS | +215.8% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 4080 wins 19 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).