Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce RTX 4080
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce RTX 4080 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5060
- + Release year (+2)
- + Die size (mm²) (+198 mm²)
- + Energy efficiency (+27.4)
B
GeForce RTX 4080
- + VRAM (GB) (+4 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+750 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+268 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+128 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+65 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-1 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+24,000M)
- + CUDA cores (+5888)
- + TMUs (+184)
- + ROPs (+64)
- + RT cores (+46)
- + Tensor cores (+184)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+29.56 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+160.70 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+461.90 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+8004)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+10065)
- + Normalized score (+22.5)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5060
|
Component B
GeForce RTX 4080
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2025 (+2) | 2023 |
| VRAM (GB) | 8 GB | 12 GB (+4 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR7 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 2250 MHz (+750 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 448 GB/s | 716 GB/s (+268 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit | 256 bit (+128 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 45 W | 110 W (+65 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 5 nm | 4 nm (-1 nm) |
| Transistors (M) | 21,900M | 45,900M (+24,000M) |
| Die size (mm²) | 181 mm² (+198 mm²) | 379 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | — |
| CUDA cores | 3,840 | 9,728 (+5888) |
| TMUs | 120 | 304 (+184) |
| ROPs | 48 | 112 (+64) |
| RT cores | 30 | 76 (+46) |
| Tensor cores | 120 | 304 (+184) |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 19.18 TFLOPS | 48.74 TFLOPS (+29.56 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 119.90 GPixel/s | 280.60 GPixel/s (+160.70 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 299.60 GTexel/s | 761.50 GTexel/s (+461.90 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 69.2 (+27.4) | 41.8 |
| PassMark (overall) | 16,749 | 24,753 (+8004) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | 18,534 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 31,366 | 41,431 (+10065) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | — |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | — |
| Normalized score | 50.3 | 72.8 (+22.5) |
In both
CUDA
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5060 | GeForce RTX 4080 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 130 FPS | 160 FPS | 23.1% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220 FPS | 290 FPS | 31.8% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95 FPS | 149 FPS | 56.8% (B) |
| Escape from Tarkov | 120 FPS | 120 FPS | ≈ |
| Far Cry 5 | 130 FPS | 171 FPS | 31.5% (B) |
| Fortnite | 170 FPS | 270 FPS | 58.8% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150 FPS | 230 FPS | 53.3% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 255 FPS | 249 FPS | +2.4% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 95 FPS | 146 FPS | 53.7% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 110 FPS | 170 FPS | 54.5% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 140 FPS | 334 FPS | 138.6% (B) |
| Valorant | 230 FPS | 300 FPS | 30.4% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 4080 wins 18 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).