NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data draws a clear line between these two Ampere-based mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile wins all nine head-to-head benchmark comparisons in the database, with no wins recorded for the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile posts an average benchmark score of 25740, placing it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. The RTX A4000 Mobile averages 21379, sitting in the 66th percentile. That is a gap of roughly 20% in aggregate scoring, and the margin appears consistently across DirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan workloads.

For users prioritizing raw graphics throughput, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile is the unambiguous choice. Its largest victory comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 107502 against 73002, a 47.3% advantage. Even in its smallest win, Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 21.3% with 117866 versus 97178. The RTX A4000 Mobile, however, is not without merit. It carries a higher base clock of 1140 MHz versus 810 MHz and a higher boost clock of 1680 MHz versus 1260 MHz, which partially explains its higher pixel rate of 134.4 GPixel/s compared to 121.0 GPixel/s. Those clock advantages do not translate into benchmark wins, but they do suggest the A4000 Mobile may handle certain throughput-oriented tasks with greater efficiency per clock.

The choice depends on workload focus. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile dominates every measured benchmark, making it the default pick for compute-heavy and gaming-oriented tasks. The RTX A4000 Mobile, with its smaller transistor count and lower memory capacity, appears better suited for scenarios where power draw is capped at 115 W and where the higher clock speeds can offset fewer shading units. Yet from pure performance data, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile is the stronger part in every recorded test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile averages 25740 across all recorded benchmarks, while the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile averages 21379. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile outperforms the A4000 Mobile by approximately 20.4% in aggregate.

Q: In which benchmark does the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile show its largest advantage?

A: The largest margin is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 107502 versus the RTX A4000 Mobile's 73002, a 47.3% difference.

Q: Does the RTX A4000 Mobile win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. The head-to-head data records 9 wins for the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile and 0 wins for the RTX A4000 Mobile across all nine tests.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has 512.0 GB/s bandwidth from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The RTX A4000 Mobile has 384.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile leads by 33.3% in bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RTX A4000 Mobile has a higher pixel rate of 134.4 GPixel/s, compared to 121.0 GPixel/s for the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile. This is despite the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile having 96 ROPs versus 80 ROPs on the A4000.

Q: Are both GPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes. Both use an 8 nm process at Samsung, and both have a transistor density of 44.4M per mm².

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture and fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. The similarity ends there. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile uses the GA103 chip, while the RTX A4000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip. The GA103 packs 22,000 million transistors into a 496 mm² die, whereas the GA104 contains 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. Both achieve the same 44.4M per mm² transistor density, but the larger GA103 provides substantially more execution resources.

The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile carries 7424 shading units, 232 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 58 ray tracing cores and 232 tensor cores. The RTX A4000 Mobile scales down to 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, with 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores. In every count, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile holds an advantage: 45% more shading units, 45% more TMUs, 20% more ROPs, 45% more ray tracing cores, and 45% more tensor cores.

Memory architecture also diverges. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The RTX A4000 Mobile has 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, yielding 384.0 GB/s. Memory clock rates differ accordingly: the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the A4000 runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's larger framebuffer and higher bandwidth give it a clear edge in memory-bound workloads.

Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and have no dedicated power connectors. Their display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning they rely on the laptop's integrated display path.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows several fields where the two GPUs differ. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile uses the GA103 chip, while the RTX A4000 Mobile uses GA104. Transistor counts differ: 22,000 million versus 17,400 million. Die sizes differ: 496 mm² versus 392 mm². Base clocks are 810 MHz for the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile and 1140 MHz for the RTX A4000 Mobile. Boost clocks are 1260 MHz versus 1680 MHz. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is 16 GB versus 8 GB, both GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth is 512.0 GB/s versus 384.0 GB/s. Shading units: 7424 versus 5120. TMUs: 232 versus 160. ROPs: 96 versus 80. Ray tracing cores: 58 versus 40. Tensor cores: 232 versus 160. Pixel rate: 121.0 GPixel/s versus 134.4 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 292.3 GTexel/s versus 268.8 GTexel/s. FP32 compute: 18.71 TFLOPS versus 17.20 TFLOPS. FP16 compute: 18.71 TFLOPS versus 17.20 TFLOPS, both at 1:1 ratio.

Both have a 115 W TDP, use the same PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, and have no power connectors. Release dates differ: the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile launched on 2022-01-24, while the RTX A4000 Mobile launched earlier on 2021-04-11. Both are end-of-life. The RTX A4000 Mobile has a recorded successor, Ada-MW, whereas the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has no successor listed. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's predecessor is GeForce 20 Mobile; the RTX A4000 Mobile's predecessor is Quadro Turing-M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records nine head-to-head tests, and the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile wins all of them. The margins are substantial and consistent across different API generations.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 117866 against 97178, a 21.3% lead. This test exercises general compute through OpenCL, and the larger shading unit count and higher FP32 throughput directly contribute to the result. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has 18.71 TFLOPS FP32 versus 17.20 TFLOPS on the A4000.

Geekbench Vulkan shows the most dramatic gap: 107502 versus 73002, a 47.3% difference. Vulkan performance often scales with raw execution resources, and the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's 7424 shading units and 58 ray tracing cores provide a significant advantage over the A4000's 5120 units and 40 ray tracing cores.

PassMark DirectX tests reinforce the pattern. In DirectX 9, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 201 versus 157, a 28% lead. DirectX 10 shows 131 versus 105, a 24.8% lead. DirectX 11 shows 164 versus 127, a 29.1% lead. DirectX 12 shows 88 versus 66, a 33.3% lead. The margins grow with newer API versions, suggesting the architecture scales better on modern workloads.

PassMark 2D tests show the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile at 818 versus 585, a 39.8% lead. This is the second-largest margin after Vulkan. PassMark 3D shows 19288 versus 14796, a 30.4% lead. PassMark GPU Compute shows 8471 versus 6394, a 32.5% lead.

The smallest margins are still substantial. The 21.3% lead in OpenCL is the narrowest win, yet it remains a clear victory. Across all nine tests, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile averages a 31.9% advantage over the RTX A4000 Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile wins in every recorded category: compute, DirectX 9 through 12, Vulkan, 2D rasterization, 3D rendering, and GPU compute. Its strengths are most pronounced in Vulkan (47.3% lead) and 2D performance (39.8% lead). These results point to workloads that benefit from high shading unit counts, tensor core throughput, and memory bandwidth. Users running machine learning inference, ray-traced rendering, or modern Vulkan-based games would see the largest relative gains from the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile.

The RTX A4000 Mobile, despite losing all benchmarks, has specific advantages that could matter in narrow use cases. Its higher base and boost clocks (1140 MHz and 1680 MHz versus 810 MHz and 1260 MHz) give it a higher pixel rate of 134.4 GPixel/s. For fill-rate-bound tasks that do not require large memory capacity or extensive shading resources, the A4000 Mobile's clock speed could provide a per-clock efficiency benefit. Its smaller die (392 mm² versus 496 mm²) and lower transistor count (17,400 million versus 22,000 million) may also imply lower manufacturing complexity, though both are rated at the same 115 W TDP.

The RTX A4000 Mobile's 8 GB memory capacity is half that of the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's 16 GB. For workloads that fit within 8 GB, the A4000 Mobile can operate with its higher clocks. Beyond that capacity, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and larger framebuffer become decisive. The database shows no test where the A4000 Mobile wins, so any advantage must come from workload-specific characteristics not captured in these benchmarks, such as driver optimizations for professional applications or lower memory footprint requirements.

In summary, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile is the superior performer across all measured metrics. The RTX A4000 Mobile offers higher clock speeds and pixel rate, but those attributes do not overcome its fewer shading units, lower memory bandwidth, and smaller framebuffer in any recorded test. Users prioritizing raw benchmark scores should choose the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile. Users with fixed power budgets or applications that favor clock speed over raw throughput may still consider the RTX A4000 Mobile, but the data does not support a performance-based argument in its favor.