NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER represent two extremes of NVIDIA's mobile and desktop GPU lineage, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The GT 730M is a 2013-era Kepler-based notebook part with 384 shading units, while the RTX 5080 SUPER is a Blackwell 2.0 flagship-class GPU with 10,752 shading units, 84 RT cores, and 336 tensor cores. Benchmark data shows the RTX 5080 SUPER scores 3,075 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, while the GT 730M scores 3,107 in Geekbench OpenCL and 3,524 in Geekbench Vulkan — though these tests are not directly comparable, the architectural gulf between them is enormous.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs were tested under different benchmark suites, making direct cross-test comparisons impossible, but the data reveals how each part positions against its own contemporaries. The GT 730M's Geekbench OpenCL score of 3,107 places it just 0.5% behind the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3,332) and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3,287). This is a razor-thin margin — the GT 730M trades blows with entry-level integrated and discrete graphics from its era, sitting in the 20th percentile of all GPUs. Its Vulkan score of 3,524 is slightly stronger, but the pattern holds: this is a part designed for basic acceleration, not performance.

The RTX 5080 SUPER's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,075 tells a different story. It sits 2.8% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (3,163) and 3.4% behind the Intel Arc Pro B60 (3,182), while leading the NVIDIA GeForce 820A (2,983) by 3.1% and the GTX 860M (2,967) by 3.6%. Despite its modern architecture and massive compute resources, the benchmark places it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs — but this is a reflection of the Steel Nomad test being an extreme DX12 workload, not a measure of real-world gaming capability. The raw specs — 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 versus the GT 730M's 556.8 GFLOPS — represent a 101x theoretical compute advantage.

The GT 730M's average benchmark score of 3,316 versus the RTX 5080 SUPER's 3,075 might suggest the older card is faster, but that would be a misreading. The GT 730M's scores come from lightweight OpenCL and Vulkan tests that stress basic shader throughput, while the RTX 5080 SUPER's Steel Nomad result comes from a modern DX12 workload with advanced features like ray tracing and mesh shaders. The RTX 5080 SUPER's nearest rivals include workstation and mobile parts, not desktop flagships, indicating that the Steel Nomad benchmark's scoring curve compresses high-end results.

Architecture Differences

The GT 730M is built on the GK107 chip using Kepler architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The RTX 5080 SUPER, by contrast, uses the GB203 chip on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process — a massive node advantage. It crams 45,600 million transistors into 378 mm², achieving 120.6 million transistors per square millimeter, roughly 11x the density of the older chip.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. The GT 730M features 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5080 SUPER ships with 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 1.02 TB/s — a 35x bandwidth increase. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the GT 730M runs at a fixed 725 MHz base and boost, while the RTX 5080 SUPER boosts to 2,617 MHz from a 2,295 MHz base. Memory clocks differ wildly too: 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) for the GT 730M versus 2,000 MHz (32 Gbps effective) for the RTX 5080 SUPER.

Compute resources are in different leagues. The GT 730M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, delivering 5.800 GPixel/s pixel rate and 23.20 GTexel/s texture rate. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, with a 293.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and 879.3 GTexel/s texture rate. The RTX 5080 SUPER also adds dedicated hardware the GT 730M lacks entirely: 84 RT cores for ray tracing and 336 tensor cores for AI workloads. FP16 performance is 1:1 with FP32 on the RTX 5080 SUPER at 56.28 TFLOPS, while the GT 730M has no listed FP16 capability.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice unambiguous for any modern workload. The RTX 5080 SUPER offers 24 GB of GDDR7 memory versus 2 GB of DDR3, a 128-bit to 256-bit bus width expansion, and a 1.02 TB/s bandwidth that dwarfs the GT 730M's 28.80 GB/s. Its 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 compute is 101x the GT 730M's 556.8 GFLOPS, and it adds ray tracing and tensor core acceleration that the Kepler part cannot emulate. The RTX 5080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 730M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175 — meaning modern games with DX12 Ultimate features will not even run properly on the older card.

The GT 730M's only advantages are power consumption and physical size. Its 33 W TDP is a fraction of the RTX 5080 SUPER's 415 W, and its MXM module form factor suits thin notebooks, whereas the RTX 5080 SUPER is a dual-slot card measuring 304 mm in length. For a user with a legacy laptop needing basic display output, the GT 730M is adequate. For anyone building or upgrading a desktop for gaming, content creation, or AI work, the RTX 5080 SUPER is the only rational choice — its 3DMark Steel Nomad score, while low in percentile terms, comes from a far more demanding test than anything the GT 730M could attempt.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GT 730M | RTX 5080 SUPER |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 45,600 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 378 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 120.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | 2,295 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 725 MHz | 2,617 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1,800 Mbps effective | 2,000 MHz / 32 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 1.02 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 10,752 |

| TMUs | 32 | 336 |

| ROPs | 16 | 112 |

| RT Cores | None | 84 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 336 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.800 GPixel/s | 293.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.20 GTexel/s | 879.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 556.8 GFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 33 W | 415 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1b 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2013-01-19 | 2025-12-31 |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER has 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth from its 24 GB GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus. The GT 730M has 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Can the GT 730M handle ray tracing?

A: No. The GT 730M has no RT cores, while the RTX 5080 SUPER has 84 RT cores dedicated to ray tracing workloads.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER delivers 56.28 TFLOPS FP32, which is 101x the GT 730M's 556.8 GFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GT 730M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The RTX 5080 SUPER also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the GT 730M's Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare?

A: The GT 730M scores 3,107 in Geekbench OpenCL and 3,524 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the RTX 5080 SUPER scores 3,075 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. These tests are not directly comparable due to different workloads and API requirements.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GT 730M has a 33 W TDP, while the RTX 5080 SUPER has a 415 W TDP. The RTX 5080 SUPER requires a single 16-pin power connector, whereas the GT 730M has no power connectors.