NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of two very different GPUs with distinct strengths. Across the nine recorded tests, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 takes seven wins, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile manages only two. The most lopsided result comes in Passmark GPU Compute, where the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 9992 against the mobile chip’s 8471, a commanding 18% advantage. This is a workstation-oriented card flexing its muscles in raw compute throughput, a domain where its architecture was designed to excel.

The second-largest gap belongs to the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it posts 117866 versus the Quadro’s 101883, a 13.6% edge. This is notable because it flips the expected narrative: the mobile Ampere part, despite lower power limits, outpaces the desktop Turing card in this particular OpenCL workload. The DirectX 11 benchmark also shows a significant spread, with the Quadro RTX 8000 scoring 188 against 164 for the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, a 14.6% margin. Vulkan results follow suit, as the Quadro RTX 8000 hits 122637 compared to 107502, a 14.1% lead.

Smaller but consistent wins for the Quadro RTX 8000 appear across legacy and 2D workloads. In Passmark DirectX 9, it scores 211 versus 201, a 5% edge. The G2D test shows 866 against 818, a 5.9% improvement. Even in DirectX 10, the older card manages 137 versus 131, a 4.6% gap. The closest contest is in Passmark G3D, where the Quadro RTX 8000’s 19799 narrowly edges out the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile’s 19288, a slim 2.6% difference. The only other win for the mobile part comes in DirectX 12, where it scores 88 against the Quadro’s 79, a 10.2% advantage.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this split. The Quadro RTX 8000 averages 28421 across all recorded tests, while the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile averages 25740. That places the Quadro at the 74th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with the mobile part at the 71st percentile. The nearest rivals for the Quadro include AMD Radeon RX 570 (delta -1.2%), AMD Radeon R9 M295X (delta -0.6%), AMD FirePro S7150 (delta 1.1%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (delta 1.4%). For the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, the closest competitors are AMD FirePro D700 (delta -0.4%), AMD FirePro W7100 (delta -0.4%), AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (delta 0.1%), and AMD Radeon RX 6700M (delta 0.4%). Both cards sit in a crowded performance band where single-digit percentage swings separate them from immediate rivals.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Quadro RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It packs 18,600 million transistors onto a 754 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile uses the GA103 chip on Ampere architecture, made by Samsung on an 8 nm node. This newer process allows 22,000 million transistors on a smaller 496 mm² die, achieving 44.4 million transistors per square millimeter, nearly double the density of the Turing part.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Quadro RTX 8000 carries 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 14 Gbps effective. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 16 Gbps effective. The Quadro’s wider bus gives it 31% more bandwidth, which helps in large dataset workloads. The mobile part compensates with faster memory clocks, but the narrower bus limits overall throughput.

Core counts tell a story of different design priorities. The Quadro RTX 8000 has 4608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has more shading units at 7424, but fewer TMUs at 232 and the same 96 ROPs. Its RT core count drops to 58, and tensor cores fall to 232. The mobile part’s higher shader count suggests a design aimed at parallel throughput, while the Quadro’s higher TMU count and tensor core density point toward workstation tasks.

Clock speeds favor the Quadro heavily. The RTX 8000 runs at a base clock of 1395 MHz and boosts to 1770 MHz. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile starts at just 810 MHz and boosts to 1260 MHz. This 510 MHz boost clock difference explains why the Quadro achieves higher pixel and texture rates despite having fewer shaders. The Quadro delivers 169.9 GPixel/s and 509.8 GTexel/s, while the mobile part manages 121.0 GPixel/s and 292.3 GTexel/s. In floating point, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile actually leads in FP32 with 18.71 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS, but the Quadro’s FP16 output of 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) doubles its FP32 rate, whereas the mobile part’s FP16 is only 18.71 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power consumption differs dramatically. The Quadro RTX 8000 carries a 260 W TDP and requires a 600 W power supply, using 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has a 115 W TDP and no power connectors, as it draws power through the laptop platform. The Quadro also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the mobile part supports PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are another contrast: the Quadro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, while the mobile chip’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 8000 establishes itself as the preferred choice for compute-heavy and legacy API workloads. Its 18% lead in Passmark GPU Compute and 14.6% edge in DirectX 11 indicate strength in general-purpose processing and older graphics pipelines. The 14.1% Vulkan advantage and 5% DirectX 9 win further solidify its position in diverse rendering environments. The 5.9% G2D margin suggests better 2D performance, and even the slim 2.6% G3D victory shows it holds the edge in standard 3D rendering. For professionals running simulation, rendering, or compute tasks that rely on raw FP32 or FP16 throughput, the Quadro’s 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 capability is a decisive factor.

The GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile wins in two specific scenarios. Its 13.6% OpenCL lead indicates superior performance in OpenCL-based applications, which are common in certain scientific and media workloads. The 10.2% DirectX 12 advantage points to better efficiency in modern gaming APIs and DX12-optimized applications. The mobile part’s higher FP32 throughput of 18.71 TFLOPS also helps in workloads that use single-precision math without relying on tensor cores. Its 115 W TDP makes it feasible in high-end laptops, whereas the Quadro requires a desktop workstation with substantial power delivery.

Use-case splits follow these patterns. The Quadro RTX 8000 suits fixed workstations where 48 GB of memory, 672.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 72 RT cores matter for large scene rendering, AI inference, or multi-application professional workflows. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile fits portable systems where 16 GB of memory and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient, and where the lower 115 W power draw enables mobile operation. The PCIe 4.0 interface on the mobile part also gives it a bandwidth advantage to the host system, which can benefit data transfer in laptop configurations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 averages 28421 across all recorded tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile averages 25740, a difference of roughly 10% in favor of the Quadro.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 scores 122637 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 107502. The Quadro leads by 14.1%.

Q: Is the mobile GPU faster in any compute workload?

A: Yes, in Geekbench OpenCL the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 117866, beating the Quadro’s 101883 by 13.6%. However, in Passmark GPU Compute, the Quadro wins 9992 versus 8471, an 18% margin.

Q: What memory capacity does each card offer?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 runs at 1395 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile runs at 810 MHz base and 1260 MHz boost, making the Quadro substantially faster in raw clock rate.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has a 260 W TDP with a suggested 600 W power supply and uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has a 115 W TDP and uses no power connectors, relying on laptop power delivery.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile |

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

| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 18,600 million | 22,000 million |

| Die Size | 754 mm² | 496 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.7M / mm² | 44.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1395 MHz | 810 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 1260 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 14 Gbps effective | 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 7424 |

| TMUs | 288 | 232 |

| ROPs | 96 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 72 | 58 |

| Tensor Cores | 576 | 232 |

| Pixel Rate | 169.9 GPixel/s | 121.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 509.8 GTexel/s | 292.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 16.31 TFLOPS | 18.71 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) | 18.71 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 115 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2018-08-12 | 2022-01-24 |

| Launch MSRP | 9,999 USD | None |

The Quadro RTX 8000’s launch MSRP was 9,999 USD, reflecting its professional workstation positioning. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has no listed MSRP, as it ships inside laptops. The Quadro’s older release date of August 2018 and its end-of-life production status contrast with the mobile part’s January 2022 release, though both are now listed as end-of-life in the database.