NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark record for these two NVIDIA Ampere cards is decisively one-sided in raw performance, but with one extraordinary exception. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 wins 9 of the 10 recorded head-to-head tests, while the NVIDIA RTX A4000 takes a single, massive victory. The most dramatic result appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the A4000 scores 127645 against the RTX 3080's 33620. That is a 279.7% advantage, the largest delta in either direction across the entire comparison. This result is so far outside the pattern of every other test that it stands as the defining anomaly of the matchup.

In the modern DirectX 12 workload, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RTX 3080 produces 4407 points versus the A4000's 2604, a 40.9% deficit for the workstation card. This is the largest conventional performance gap in the dataset. The compute-oriented results follow a similar shape. In Passmark GPU Compute, the RTX 3080 scores 14397 against 9760, putting the A4000 32.2% behind. Geekbench OpenCL shows the RTX 3080 at 152423 with the A4000 at 105739, a 30.6% difference. These three tests, Steel Nomad, GPU Compute, and OpenCL, all point to a substantial raw throughput advantage for the GeForce part.

The legacy DirectX tests reinforce the same hierarchy with smaller margins. Passmark DirectX 12 gives the RTX 3080 a 100 to 72 win, a 28% gap. DirectX 11 sees 207 against 158, a 23.7% difference. DirectX 10 shows 170 versus 126, a 25.9% gap. Even DirectX 9, the oldest test in the set, favors the RTX 3080 by 7%, with 258 points to 240. The 2D workload is nearly a tie: Passmark G2D scores 1054 for the RTX 3080 and 1024 for the A4000, a 2.8% margin. The overall Passmark G3D score lands at 25086 for the GeForce card and 19459 for the A4000, a 22.4% advantage. Across all ten recorded tests, the average benchmark score tells a slightly different story than the head-to-head wins: the A4000 averages 26683 while the RTX 3080 averages 23172. That inversion exists because the Vulkan outlier inflates the A4000's average, while the RTX 3080's nearest rivals in the database sit much closer to its own average, with the P106-100 at 23249, a delta of 0.3%.

The A4000's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 72, which is higher than the RTX 3080's 68. Again, the Vulkan result contributes heavily to that positioning. The RTX 3080's nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23273 and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X at 23276, sit within 0.4% of its average, suggesting the GeForce card's overall score is tightly clustered with a broad range of lesser-known parts. The A4000, by contrast, sits 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary and 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture and use Samsung's 8 nm process node, but the silicon underneath is very different. The RTX A4000 uses the GA104 chip, a die measuring 392 mm² with 17,400 million transistors. The GeForce RTX 3080 uses the much larger GA102 chip, measuring 628 mm² with 28,300 million transistors. The transistor density is nearly identical, 44.4M per mm² for the A4000 and 45.1M per mm² for the RTX 3080, which confirms the same manufacturing process with different die sizes. The larger GA102 die gives the RTX 3080 a clear resource advantage: 8704 shading units versus 6144, 272 texture mapping units versus 192, and 272 tensor cores against 192. Both cards share 96 ROPs, so pixel output is close, but the RTX 3080 has 68 ray tracing cores while the A4000 has 48.

Clock behavior is another major split. The A4000 runs a 735 MHz base clock and a 1560 MHz boost clock, while the RTX 3080 starts at 1440 MHz base and boosts to 1710 MHz. The higher clocks on the GeForce card compound its already larger shader count. The FP32 throughput reflects this: the RTX 3080 reaches 29.77 TFLOPS while the A4000 produces 19.17 TFLOPS. Both cards run FP16 at the same rate as FP32, a 1:1 ratio. Texture fill rate tells the same story, 465.1 GTexel/s for the RTX 3080 versus 299.5 GTexel/s for the A4000. Pixel rates are closer, 164.2 GPixel/s versus 149.8 GPixel/s, which aligns with the shared ROP count.

The memory systems diverge sharply. The A4000 carries 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3080 has 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 760.3 GB/s. The memory clock figures in the database are 1750 MHz for the A4000 with 14 Gbps effective, and 1188 MHz for the RTX 3080 with 19 Gbps effective. The GDDR6X standard is the key enabler here, allowing higher effective data rates despite a lower physical clock. The A4000 offers more capacity, which matters for large datasets, but the RTX 3080 provides substantially more bandwidth.

Power and physical design are also distinct. The A4000 is a single-slot card with a 140 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector, requiring a 300 W suggested PSU. The RTX 3080 is a dual-slot card with a 320 W TDP, a single 12-pin connector, and a 700 W suggested PSU. The A4000 measures 241 mm in length and 112 mm in height, while the RTX 3080 is 285 mm long, 112 mm high, and 40 mm wide. Display outputs differ as well: the A4000 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RTX 3080 provides one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A4000 belongs to the Workstation Ampere generation and lists Quadro Turing as its predecessor and Workstation Ada as its successor. The RTX 3080 is part of the GeForce 30-series, succeeding GeForce 20 and followed by GeForce 40.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in raw DirectX 12 performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 it scores 4407 against the RTX A4000's 2604, a 40.9% advantage. Passmark DirectX 12 also favors the RTX 3080, 100 to 72, a 28% gap.

Q: Why does the RTX A4000 have a higher average benchmark score?

A: The A4000 averages 26683 across all recorded tests, while the RTX 3080 averages 23172. This is driven by the A4000's Geekbench Vulkan score of 127645, which beats the RTX 3080's 33620 by 279.7%. That single outlier lifts the average despite the RTX 3080 winning nine of the ten individual tests.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The A4000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3080 has 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus with 760.3 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3080 delivers substantially more bandwidth, while the A4000 offers more capacity.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use NVIDIA's Ampere architecture and are fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. They differ in chip size: the A4000 uses GA104 at 392 mm² with 17,400 million transistors, while the RTX 3080 uses GA102 at 628 mm² with 28,300 million transistors.

Q: Which card has more compute resources?

A: The RTX 3080. It has 8704 shading units, 272 TMUs, 272 tensor cores, and 68 ray tracing cores, compared to the A4000's 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 192 tensor cores, and 48 ray tracing cores. Both share 96 ROPs.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The A4000 has a 140 W TDP, a single 6-pin connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The RTX 3080 has a 320 W TDP, a single 12-pin connector, and a 700 W suggested PSU. The A4000 is single-slot, while the RTX 3080 is dual-slot.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification except for the 8 nm process node, Samsung foundry, 96 ROPs, PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, and the API set of DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The chip is GA104 for the A4000 and GA102 for the RTX 3080. Die size is 392 mm² versus 628 mm², and transistor count is 17,400 million against 28,300 million. Transistor density is 44.4M per mm² versus 45.1M per mm². Base clocks are 735 MHz versus 1440 MHz, boost clocks 1560 MHz versus 1710 MHz. Memory clock is 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective for the A4000, and 1188 MHz with 19 Gbps effective for the RTX 3080.

Memory size is 16 GB versus 10 GB, type is GDDR6 versus GDDR6X, bus width 256-bit versus 320-bit, and bandwidth 448.0 GB/s versus 760.3 GB/s. Shading units are 6144 versus 8704, TMUs 192 versus 272, RT cores 48 versus 68, tensor cores 192 versus 272. Pixel rate is 149.8 GPixel/s versus 164.2 GPixel/s, texture rate 299.5 GTexel/s versus 465.1 GTexel/s, and FP32/FP16 are 19.17 TFLOPS versus 29.77 TFLOPS. TDP is 140 W versus 320 W, slot width single-slot versus dual-slot, power connector 1x 6-pin versus 1x 12-pin, and suggested PSU 300 W versus 700 W. Length is 241 mm versus 285 mm, height is 112 mm for both, and the RTX 3080 adds a 40 mm width dimension. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The release dates are 2021-04-11 for the A4000 and 2020-08-31 for the RTX 3080. The RTX 3080 has a launch MSRP of 699 USD.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy, with one major caveat. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is the stronger card in nine of ten benchmark tests, with wins ranging from 2.8% in Passmark G2D to 40.9% in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its compute lead is consistent across OpenCL, DirectX 10, 11, and 12, and it maintains a 22.4% edge in Passmark G3D and a 32.2% edge in Passmark GPU Compute. Anyone prioritizing raw frame throughput, compute capacity, or memory bandwidth should look at the RTX 3080, which offers 29.77 TFLOPS FP32, 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth, and 8704 shading units.

The RTX A4000 is the correct choice only if the workload specifically values the Geekbench Vulkan result, where it leads by 279.7%, or if memory capacity above 10 GB is essential. The A4000 provides 16 GB of GDDR6, which doubles the RTX 3080's capacity, albeit on a narrower 256-bit bus with lower bandwidth. The A4000 also draws less power at 140 W versus 320 W, occupies a single slot instead of two, and uses a single 6-pin connector rather than a 12-pin. The RTX 3080 carries a launch MSRP of 699 USD, while the A4000 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The percentile rankings are a useful final note. The A4000 sits at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, while the RTX 3080 sits at the 68th. The A4000's average benchmark score of 26683 exceeds the RTX 3080's 23172, but that average is heavily distorted by the Vulkan outlier. In practical terms, the RTX 3080 is the dominant performer in the vast majority of workloads, and the A4000's single standout result does not offset the consistent losses elsewhere.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 wins in every conventional graphics and compute category recorded in the database. It leads in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 by 40.9%, in Geekbench OpenCL by 30.6%, in Passmark GPU Compute by 32.2%, in Passmark DirectX 12 by 28%, in DirectX 11 by 23.7%, in DirectX 10 by 25.9%, in DirectX 9 by 7%, in Passmark G3D by 22.4%, and in Passmark G2D by 2.8%. These results align with its architectural advantages: more shading units, higher clocks, faster memory, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. The RTX 3080 is the card for anyone running DirectX-era games, OpenCL compute, or general 3D rendering that can use its 29.77 TFLOPS and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth.

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 wins exactly one test, but it wins it decisively: Geekbench Vulkan, 127645 versus 33620, a 279.7% margin. This result is so large that it cannot be dismissed as noise, and it suggests the A4000's driver and hardware combination is particularly well suited to Vulkan workloads in the database's testing methodology. The A4000 also offers 16 GB of memory, which is 60% more capacity than the RTX 3080's 10 GB, even though the bandwidth is lower at 448.0 GB/s. Its single-slot design, 140 W TDP, and 300 W suggested PSU make it the more practical card for constrained systems. Users with Vulkan-centric applications, large memory footprints, or strict power and space limits should favor the A4000. Everyone else should default to the RTX 3080.