AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is in a different performance class entirely, winning all three head-to-head benchmark comparisons by margins between 250% and 295%. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, despite being an end-of-life product from 2017, still holds an 86th percentile ranking among all GPUs, but it cannot compete with the Ada Lovelace architecture's raw throughput and modern feature set. The data is unambiguous: the RTX 4080 SUPER delivers roughly four times the performance in synthetic DirectX 12 and compute workloads, with the only shared territory being their identical 86th percentile standing—a statistical artifact of the Vega 64's age and the benchmark database's broader GPU population.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER wins every single benchmark category in the head-to-head comparison. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RTX 4080 SUPER scores 6600 against the Vega 64's 1669, a 295.4% advantage—meaning the NVIDIA card renders the same scene nearly four times faster. This is the largest delta of any test and reflects the massive gap in shading throughput, texture rate, and pixel rate between the two architectures.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 SUPER posts 219065 versus 62552 for the Vega 64, a 250.2% lead. This compute-oriented workload highlights the RTX 4080 SUPER's 52.22 TFLOPS FP32 performance against the Vega 64's 12.66 TFLOPS—a 4.1x raw compute advantage that translates directly to the benchmark result. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a 288% lead (260075 vs 67032), confirming that the NVIDIA card's advantage persists across API boundaries.

The Vega 64's only comparative strength is efficiency of design relative to its era: it achieves its scores with a 295 W TDP, only 25 W less than the RTX 4080 SUPER's 320 W, while delivering a fraction of the performance. The RTX 4080 SUPER also wins on architectural completeness—it includes 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Vega 64, which has neither RT nor tensor hardware. For any workload involving ray tracing, DLSS, or AI-accelerated features, the Vega 64 is not merely slower—it is incapable of running them natively.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 4080 SUPER uses the AD103 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die—a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. The Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, with 12,500 million transistors across a larger 495 mm² die, yielding just 25.3 million transistors per square millimeter. This 4.8x density advantage explains how NVIDIA fits more than 3.6x the transistors into a smaller physical area.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 736.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 64 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, achieving 483.8 GB/s. While the Vega 64's wider bus is architecturally interesting, the RTX 4080 SUPER's newer memory technology provides 52% more bandwidth alongside double the capacity. The Vega 64's HBM2 runs at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) versus the RTX 4080 SUPER's 1438 MHz (23 Gbps effective).

Core counts tell a similar story: the RTX 4080 SUPER has 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, versus 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs on the Vega 64. The NVIDIA card also carries 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores; the AMD card has neither. Clock speeds favor NVIDIA as well—2295 MHz base and 2550 MHz boost versus 1247 MHz base and 1546 MHz boost. The Vega 64 does support FP16 at a 2:1 ratio (25.33 TFLOPS) versus the RTX 4080 SUPER's 1:1 FP16 (52.22 TFLOPS), but the NVIDIA card still delivers more than double the FP16 throughput.

API support differs: the RTX 4080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 64 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RTX 4080 SUPER uses PCIe 4.0 x16; the Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Physical design also diverges—the RTX 4080 SUPER is a triple-slot, 310 mm card needing a 16-pin connector and 700 W PSU, while the Vega 64 is a dual-slot, 280 mm card with dual 8-pin connectors and a 600 W PSU recommendation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test delivers the most decisive result: 6600 for the RTX 4080 SUPER versus 1669 for the Vega 64, a 295.4% delta. This test stresses modern DirectX 12 rendering pipelines, including mesh shaders and variable-rate shading, where the Vega 64's GCN 5.0 architecture from 2017 has no hardware acceleration. The gap is so large that the RTX 4080 SUPER completes roughly four frames for every one frame the Vega 64 produces.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a 250.2% lead (219065 vs 62552). OpenCL compute heavily weights FP32 throughput, and here the RTX 4080 SUPER's 52.22 TFLOPS versus 12.66 TFLOPS creates an insurmountable gap. The Vega 64's FP16 advantage (25.33 TFLOPS at 2:1) does not help in this test, which targets FP32 workloads. The RTX 4080 SUPER's 10,240 shading units process 2.5x more data per clock than the Vega 64's 4,096 units, and the clock speed advantage (2550 MHz boost vs 1546 MHz boost) multiplies that effect.

Geekbench Vulkan delivers a 288% lead (260075 vs 67032). Vulkan's low-overhead nature lets both GPUs stretch their legs, but the RTX 4080 SUPER's newer architecture and higher bandwidth (736.3 GB/s vs 483.8 GB/s) pull further ahead. The 16 GB GDDR6X memory also avoids capacity bottlenecks that the 8 GB HBM2 may encounter in larger workloads. Across all three tests, the smallest margin is still 250%, demonstrating that no workload in this comparison favors the Vega 64.

FAQ

Q: Is the RTX 4080 SUPER worth upgrading to from a Vega 64?

A: Benchmark data shows the RTX 4080 SUPER leads by 250.2% in Geekbench OpenCL, 288% in Geekbench Vulkan, and 295.4% in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Any of these margins represents a generational leap that justifies the upgrade for performance-focused users.

Q: Does the Vega 64 have ray tracing or AI acceleration?

A: No. The Vega 64 has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 4080 SUPER includes 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI features that the Vega 64 cannot perform natively.

Q: How do memory capacities compare?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 736.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 64 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4080 SUPER offers double the capacity and 52% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega 64 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RTX 4080 SUPER also uses PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Vega 64.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has a 320 W TDP and requires a 700 W PSU with a single 16-pin connector. The Vega 64 has a 295 W TDP and requires a 600 W PSU with dual 8-pin connectors. The RTX 4080 SUPER is triple-slot; the Vega 64 is dual-slot.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 SUPER compare to its own predecessor?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER's average benchmark score is 54209, which is 0.1% below the standard RTX 4080's 54247. It sits 1.1% below the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54828) and 2.7% below the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698).

Specification Differences

| Specification | RTX 4080 SUPER | RX Vega 64 |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 45,900 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 379 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.1M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2295 MHz | 1247 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2550 MHz | 1546 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 736.3 GB/s | 483.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10240 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 320 | 256 |

| ROPs | 112 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 80 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 320 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 285.6 GPixel/s | 98.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 816.0 GTexel/s | 395.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 52.22 TFLOPS | 12.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 52.22 TFLOPS (1:1) | 25.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 320 W | 295 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 310 mm | 280 mm |

| Height | 140 mm | 111 mm |

| Width | 61 mm | 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2017-08-06 |

The Verdict

The RTX 4080 SUPER is the clear choice for any modern workload. Its 295.4% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 288% lead in Geekbench Vulkan mean it delivers roughly four times the frame throughput in current-generation gaming and rendering scenarios. The 16 GB memory capacity, 736.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 52.22 TFLOPS FP32 performance provide headroom for high-resolution textures, compute workloads, and future titles that the Vega 64's 8 GB and 483.8 GB/s cannot match.

The Vega 64 remains a historical artifact: its 86th percentile ranking among all GPUs is respectable for a 2017 product, and its HBM2 memory and 2048-bit bus were innovative for their time. But the architecture lacks RT cores, tensor cores, and modern API support (DirectX 12_1 vs 12_2, Vulkan 1.3 vs 1.4). Its 14 nm process and 25.3M transistors per mm² density are a full generation behind the RTX 4080 SUPER's 5 nm and 121.1M per mm².

Users with a Vega 64 should upgrade if their workloads involve ray tracing, AI-accelerated features, or any modern DirectX 12 Ultimate title. The RTX 4080 SUPER's 250-295% performance advantage across every tested benchmark makes the comparison one-sided. The only scenario where the Vega 64 makes sense is legacy software compatibility or a constrained physical build—it is 30 mm shorter, 29 mm narrower, and dual-slot versus triple-slot. Otherwise, the data supports only one conclusion: the RTX 4080 SUPER is the superior GPU by every measurable metric.