NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 vs NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two NVIDIA parts. In the two benchmark tests where both were measured, the GeForce RTX 4080 wins outright. There is no benchmark in the database where the RTX A3000 Mobile takes the lead.

The GeForce RTX 4080 dominates the OpenCL workload. It scores 214,739 points against the RTX A3000 Mobile's 79,091. That is a 63.2% advantage, meaning the RTX 4080 delivers roughly 2.7 times the raw compute throughput in this test. The A3000 Mobile's score is not weak in absolute terms, it sits in the 91st percentile of all GPUs, but the RTX 4080's result is on a different tier entirely.

The Vulkan results are even more lopsided. The RTX 4080 posts 263,779 points, while the A3000 Mobile manages 61,189. The delta is 76.8%, which translates to the RTX 4080 being over 4.3 times faster in this API workload. For context, the A3000 Mobile's nearest rivals in the database include the Quadro P6000, which sits within 0.2% of its average score, and the Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 0.4% ahead. The RTX 4080, by contrast, is surrounded by the RTX 4080 SUPER (within 0.1%) and AMD parts that trail by roughly 1% to 3%.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The A3000 Mobile averages 70,140 across all recorded tests. The RTX 4080 averages 54,247. That seems contradictory given the head-to-head results, but the database includes many more tests for the RTX 4080, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 passes plus compute workloads, which pull its average down. The two head-to-head tests where both cards appear are the only direct apples-to-apples comparisons, and those favor the RTX 4080 overwhelmingly.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The RTX A3000 Mobile is built on Ampere, specifically the GA104 chip, using Samsung's 8 nm process. The die measures 392 mm² and packs 17,400 million transistors, yielding a density of 44.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The RTX 4080 uses Ada Lovelace, built on TSMC's 5 nm node with the AD103 chip. Its die is slightly smaller at 379 mm², but it crams in 45,900 million transistors, giving a density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. That is nearly three times the transistor density, which explains how the newer card achieves so much more performance from a similar physical footprint.

Core configurations differ massively. The A3000 Mobile has 4,096 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RTX 4080 more than doubles those counts: 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware also favors the newer card, with 76 RT cores versus 32, and tensor cores jump from 128 to 304. These are not incremental upgrades, they are generational leaps in parallel processing capacity.

Clock speeds widen the gap further. The A3000 Mobile runs at a 600 MHz base and 1230 MHz boost, which are low figures typical of a mobile part designed for thermal and power constraints. The RTX 4080 starts at 2205 MHz base and boosts to 2505 MHz. Combine higher clocks with more cores and the raw throughput numbers become stark. The A3000 Mobile delivers 10.08 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The RTX 4080 delivers 48.74 TFLOPS, which is 4.8 times higher. Pixel rate jumps from 78.72 GPixel/s to 280.6 GPixel/s, and texture rate goes from 157.4 GTexel/s to 761.5 GTexel/s.

Memory subsystems are also completely different. The A3000 Mobile uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with 264 GB/s of bandwidth and an effective memory clock of 11 Gbps. The RTX 4080 uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, pushing 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth at 22.4 Gbps effective. That is 2.7 times the memory bandwidth and over twice the capacity, which matters for high-resolution textures and large datasets.

The Verdict

The data leaves little room for ambiguity. If raw performance is the only criterion, the GeForce RTX 4080 is the clear choice. It wins both head-to-head benchmark tests by margins of 63.2% and 76.8%. It has more cores, higher clocks, more memory, faster memory, and a much more advanced architecture. The RTX 4080 also has a significantly higher TDP at 320 W versus 70 W, which is the trade-off for that performance.

However, the RTX A3000 Mobile occupies a different niche. It is a mobile workstation part with a 70 W power envelope, no power connectors required, and display outputs that are portable-device dependent. The RTX 4080 is a desktop card that needs a 16-pin power connector, a 700 W suggested power supply, and a triple-slot cooler. The A3000 Mobile is end-of-life, as is the RTX 4080, but the A3000 Mobile targets mobile form factors where the RTX 4080 physically cannot fit.

The RTX 4080 is the pick for anyone building a desktop workstation or gaming rig where power and space are available. The A3000 Mobile is the pick for a laptop or compact mobile workstation where the 70 W envelope and lack of external power connectors are non-negotiable constraints. Neither card is a sensible purchase for the other's use case.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A3000 Mobile has a higher average benchmark score of 70,140 compared to the RTX 4080's 54,247. This is because the RTX 4080 has many more recorded tests, including older DirectX 9, 10, and 11 workloads, which lower its average despite winning the head-to-head tests.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4080 in Vulkan?

A: The RTX 4080 scores 263,779 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the RTX A3000 Mobile scores 61,189. That is a 76.8% difference, making the RTX 4080 over 4.3 times faster in this specific benchmark.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX A3000 Mobile has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. The RTX 4080 has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, which is more than double the capacity and uses a faster memory type.

Q: Does the RTX A3000 Mobile require external power connectors?

A: No. The RTX A3000 Mobile has no power connectors listed and a 70 W TDP. The RTX 4080 requires a single 16-pin connector and a 700 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX 4080 has 76 RT cores, while the RTX A3000 Mobile has 32. The RTX 4080 more than doubles the ray tracing hardware of the older Ampere part.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The RTX A3000 Mobile is built on Samsung's 8 nm process. The RTX 4080 uses TSMC's 5 nm process, which allows for much higher transistor density: 121.1 million per mm² versus 44.4 million per mm².

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4080 wins every benchmark where both cards are measured. In Geekbench OpenCL, it beats the A3000 Mobile by 63.2%. In Geekbench Vulkan, it wins by 76.8%. It also has higher pixel rate (280.6 GPixel/s vs 78.72 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (761.5 GTexel/s vs 157.4 GTexel/s), and nearly 5 times the FP32 throughput (48.74 TFLOPS vs 10.08 TFLOPS). For any compute-heavy, graphics-intensive, or ray-traced workload, the RTX 4080 is the superior part.

The RTX A3000 Mobile wins on power efficiency and form factor. It draws 70 W versus 320 W, needs no power connectors, and has no fixed slot width or cooler length, making it suitable for portable devices. The RTX 4080 requires a triple-slot cooler, measures 310 mm long, 140 mm high, and 61 mm wide, and needs a 700 W power supply. The A3000 Mobile also has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs (91st versus 86th), though this reflects its narrower benchmark set.

For a desktop build with adequate cooling and power delivery, the RTX 4080 is the obvious choice. For a mobile workstation where battery life, heat output, and physical dimensions are the limiting factors, the A3000 Mobile is the only viable option in this comparison.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GA104 (A3000 Mobile) vs AD103 (RTX 4080)
• Architecture: Ampere vs Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Ampere-MW (Ax000) vs GeForce 40
• Process node: 8 nm Samsung vs 5 nm TSMC
• Transistors: 17,400 million vs 45,900 million
• Die size: 392 mm² vs 379 mm²
• Transistor density: 44.4M / mm² vs 121.1M / mm²
• Base clock: 600 MHz vs 2205 MHz
• Boost clock: 1230 MHz vs 2505 MHz
• Memory clock: 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective) vs 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 6 GB vs 16 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 vs GDDR6X
• Memory bus width: 192 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 264.0 GB/s vs 716.8 GB/s
• Shading units: 4096 vs 9728
• TMUs: 128 vs 304
• ROPs: 64 vs 112
• RT cores: 32 vs 76
• Tensor cores: 128 vs 304
• Pixel rate: 78.72 GPixel/s vs 280.6 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 157.4 GTexel/s vs 761.5 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 10.08 TFLOPS vs 48.74 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 10.08 TFLOPS vs 48.74 TFLOPS
• TDP: 70 W vs 320 W
• Slot width: Not listed vs Triple-slot
• Power connectors: None vs 1x 16-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not listed vs 700 W
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x HDMI 2.13x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions: Not listed vs 310 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm
• Release date: 2021-04-11 vs 2022-09-19
• Predecessor: Quadro Turing-M vs GeForce 30
• Successor: Ada-MW vs GeForce 50
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 1,199 USD