NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 represent two distinct eras of GPU design. The Quadro GP100, built for professional compute and visualization workloads, arrived in late 2016 as part of the Pascal generation. The GeForce RTX 4080, released in late 2022, is a consumer gaming and rendering powerhouse based on the Ada Lovelace architecture. The database shows the RTX 4080 as the clear winner in the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded, but each card has a distinct profile that matters for different use cases. This analysis examines the recorded data, architectural differences, and specification gaps between these two NVIDIA offerings.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce RTX 4080 has an average benchmark score of 54,247, while the Quadro GP100 has an average benchmark score of 87,445. However, these averages are based on different benchmark suites, so direct comparison is limited. In the common test, Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 scores 214,739 versus 87,445 for the Quadro GP100, a 59.3% difference.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: Both cards have 16 GB of memory, but the types differ. The Quadro GP100 uses HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus and 732.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4080 uses GDDR6X with a 256-bit bus and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the RTX 4080 achieves nearly the same bandwidth due to faster memory clocks.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RTX 4080 uses a 5 nm process with 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, yielding a density of 121.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro GP100 uses a 16 nm process with 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die, yielding a density of 25.1 million transistors per square millimeter.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The RTX 4080 has 9,728 shading units and 304 TMUs. The Quadro GP100 has 3,584 shading units and 224 TMUs. The RTX 4080 also has 112 ROPs versus 96 ROPs on the Quadro GP100.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The Quadro GP100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The RTX 4080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4080 also includes dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which the Quadro GP100 lacks.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The Quadro GP100 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, using a dual-slot design. The RTX 4080 measures 310 mm in length, 140 mm in height, and 61 mm in width, using a triple-slot design. The RTX 4080 is notably larger in all dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce RTX 4080 wins in raw compute throughput across the board. Its FP32 performance is 48.74 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS for the Quadro GP100, a nearly 4.7x advantage. The FP16 performance also favors the RTX 4080, with 48.74 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio versus 20.69 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio on the Quadro GP100. This makes the RTX 4080 substantially better for general compute tasks, machine learning inference, and any workload that can leverage its tensor cores.

The RTX 4080 also wins in texture and pixel processing rates. Its texture rate of 761.5 GTexel/s is more than double the 323.2 GTexel/s of the Quadro GP100. The pixel rate of 280.6 GPixel/s on the RTX 4080 compares to 138.5 GPixel/s on the Quadro GP100. These advantages translate directly to gaming performance and real-time rendering workloads.

The Quadro GP100 wins in memory bandwidth efficiency relative to its memory type. While the RTX 4080's 716.8 GB/s bandwidth is close to the Quadro GP100's 732.2 GB/s, the Quadro GP100 achieves this with a 4096-bit HBM2 interface. This wider bus can be advantageous for certain access patterns, but the data shows the RTX 4080 still wins the compute test decisively.

For professional visualization, the Quadro GP100 has a legacy advantage: its display outputs include 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, which may suit older professional setups. The RTX 4080 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more modern but lacks DVI support.

The RTX 4080 wins in future-proofing. It supports PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Quadro GP100, offering double the bus bandwidth for data transfer. The RTX 4080 also has newer API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro GP100 is built on the Pascal architecture, which was designed for compute and professional workloads. Pascal introduced a unified memory architecture with HBM2, which provided exceptional bandwidth for large datasets. The GP100 chip uses a 16 nm process from TSMC, with 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die. This large die allowed for 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Pascal architecture did not include dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as those features arrived in later generations.

The RTX 4080 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture, which is built on a 5 nm process from TSMC. The AD103 chip packs 45,900 million transistors onto a 379 mm² die, achieving a much higher transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. Ada Lovelace introduces third-generation ray tracing cores and fourth-generation tensor cores. The RTX 4080 has 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-enhanced features like DLSS.

The memory architectures differ significantly. The Quadro GP100 uses HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus, which was a modern design in 2016. This wide bus provides high bandwidth but requires a large interposer, contributing to the 610 mm² die size. The RTX 4080 uses GDDR6X with a 256-bit bus, but the much higher memory clock speed of 22.4 Gbps effective allows it to nearly match the Quadro GP100's bandwidth.

The power delivery and cooling solutions also reflect their eras. The Quadro GP100 has a 235 W TDP with a single 8-pin power connector and a dual-slot cooler. The RTX 4080 has a 320 W TDP with a single 16-pin power connector and a triple-slot cooler. The recommended power supply is 550 W for the Quadro GP100 and 700 W for the RTX 4080, reflecting the higher power draw of the newer card.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measured specification. The process node is 16 nm for the Quadro GP100 versus 5 nm for the RTX 4080. Transistor count is 15,300 million versus 45,900 million, and die size is 610 mm² versus 379 mm². The transistor density is 25.1 million per square millimeter versus 121.1 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds are substantially higher on the RTX 4080. The base clock is 2205 MHz versus 1304 MHz, and the boost clock is 2505 MHz versus 1443 MHz. Memory clocks are 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective) versus 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective).

Memory type is GDDR6X versus HBM2, with bus widths of 256 bit versus 4096 bit. Bandwidth is 716.8 GB/s versus 732.2 GB/s, a small difference despite the contrasting implementations.

Compute units show a large gap: shading units are 9,728 versus 3,584, TMUs are 304 versus 224, and ROPs are 112 versus 96. The RTX 4080 has 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores, while the Quadro GP100 has none.

FP32 performance is 48.74 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 48.74 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel rate is 280.6 GPixel/s versus 138.5 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 761.5 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s.

Power specs differ: TDP is 320 W versus 235 W, slot width is triple-slot versus dual-slot, and power connectors are 1x 16-pin versus 1x 8-pin. The suggested PSU is 700 W versus 550 W.

Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX 4080 measures 310 mm by 140 mm by 61 mm, while the Quadro GP100 measures 267 mm by 111 mm.

API support differs: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Release dates are separated by six years: the Quadro GP100 launched in September 2016, and the RTX 4080 launched in September 2022. The Quadro GP100 is classified as end-of-life, with the Quadro Volta as its successor. The RTX 4080 is also end-of-life, succeeded by the GeForce 50 series.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the RTX 4080 scores 214,739, while the Quadro GP100 scores 87,445. The RTX 4080 wins with a 59.3% delta, meaning the RTX 4080's score is 59.3% higher than the Quadro GP100's score.

This result makes sense given the compute specifications. The RTX 4080 has 2.7 times the shading units, 4.7 times the FP32 throughput, and a much higher boost clock of 2505 MHz versus 1443 MHz. The Geekbench OpenCL workload is heavily compute-oriented, favoring the newer architecture's higher clocks and larger shader count.

The Quadro GP100's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance. It sits 0.4% above the AMD Radeon PRO W7600, 2.1% above the NVIDIA CMP 40HX, 4% below the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, and 4.6% below the NVIDIA RTX A4500. This places the Quadro GP100 in the mid-range of professional GPUs, despite its 93rd percentile ranking among all GPUs.

The RTX 4080's nearest rivals show a different position. It is 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, 1.1% below the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X, 2.6% below the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, and 2.7% below the AMD Radeon 8060S. This tight clustering indicates the RTX 4080 is at the top of the consumer GPU tier, with its 86th percentile ranking reflecting the many lower-tier cards that exist.

The huge margin in Geekbench OpenCL highlights the generational leap between Pascal and Ada Lovelace. The RTX 4080's 48.74 TFLOPS FP32 performance is not just a clock advantage; it comes from having nearly three times the shading units operating at nearly double the clock rate. The FP16 performance of 48.74 TFLOPS on the RTX 4080 is also double the Quadro GP100's 20.69 TFLOPS, and the RTX 4080 achieves this at a 1:1 ratio, meaning no performance penalty for FP16 workloads.

In gaming and real-time graphics, the RTX 4080's advantage is even more pronounced due to its ray tracing cores and tensor cores. The Quadro GP100 cannot accelerate ray tracing in hardware, relying on compute shaders, which is far slower. The RTX 4080's 76 ray tracing cores handle BVH traversal and ray intersection in hardware, enabling real-time ray-traced lighting and reflections. The 304 tensor cores enable DLSS, which can boost frame rates by rendering at lower resolutions and using AI to upscale.

For professional workloads, the Quadro GP100's HBM2 memory and 4096-bit bus may still offer advantages in specific scientific computing tasks that require high bandwidth to large datasets. However, the recorded data shows the RTX 4080 wins the compute test decisively, and its higher bandwidth per watt and newer architecture make it the better choice for most modern workloads.

The RTX 4080 also offers better API support for future software. DirectX 12 Ultimate includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, which can improve rendering efficiency. Vulkan 1.4 support allows for newer extensions and better performance in Vulkan-based applications.

In summary, the RTX 4080 dominates the Quadro GP100 in the recorded benchmark, with a 59.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. The architectural differences, including process node, core counts, and dedicated ray tracing hardware, explain this gap. The Quadro GP100's strengths lie in its HBM2 memory interface and professional display outputs, but the data shows the RTX 4080 is the superior performer in compute workloads. For users evaluating these cards today, the RTX 4080 offers significantly higher performance across all measured metrics.