NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER and the NVIDIA RTX A400. Instead, each card has its own set of recorded measurements, and their relative standing must be inferred from their average scores and nearest rival comparisons.

The RTX 5080 SUPER shows a single benchmark entry: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, with a score of 3075. Its average benchmark score is also 3075, placing it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs in the database. That percentile is low, but it reflects the fact that this card is measured against a database populated by many older and lower-end parts. Its nearest rivals are telling: the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 3163, which is 2.8% higher, and the Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3182, 3.4% higher. Meanwhile, the RTX 5080 SUPER leads the NVIDIA GeForce 820A by 3.1% (2983) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M by 3.6% (2967). The data suggests that in this particular DX12 workload, the RTX 5080 SUPER lands in a tight cluster where the difference between first and last among the four rivals is only about 7%.

The RTX A400, by contrast, has nine benchmark entries spanning OpenCL, Vulkan, and multiple Passmark DirectX tests. Its average benchmark score is 6078, which places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. That is a higher percentile than the RTX 5080 SUPER's 19th, but the comparison is not apples to apples because the test suites differ. The A400's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (0.0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (0.5% higher for the A400), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 (0.6% lower for the A400), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (1.0% higher for the A400). The A400 sits almost exactly in the middle of this group, with the spread from lowest to highest being just 1.6%. That is an extremely tight cluster, indicating that the A400's measured performance is highly consistent with other entry-level workstation and integrated-class GPUs in the database.

What the numbers do not show is any direct comparison between the two cards in the same workload. The RTX 5080 SUPER's lone DX12 score cannot be compared to the A400's Passmark DX12 score of 27 because the tests are different. The A400's Passmark DX12 result is its weakest DirectX showing, while its Passmark DX9 score of 87 is its strongest. The RTX 5080 SUPER's 3DMark Steel Nomad result is a modern, heavy workload, and its position near the Quadro P1000 and Arc Pro B60 suggests that this card is not operating at the top of the database's performance hierarchy, despite its modern architecture and large memory pool.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different design generations and process nodes. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses the GB203 chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 45,600 million transistors into a 378 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 120.6 million per square millimeter. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. Its transistor count is 8,700 million on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The density difference is stark: the RTX 5080 SUPER packs nearly three times as many transistors per area, a direct consequence of the newer process node.

Core counts diverge massively. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 10,752 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, 112 raster output units, 84 ray tracing cores, and 336 tensor cores. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 ray tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores. The RTX 5080 SUPER is an order of magnitude larger in every compute category. Clock speeds also differ: the RTX 5080 SUPER runs at a base of 2295 MHz and boosts to 2617 MHz, while the RTX A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. The combination of more cores and higher clocks gives the RTX 5080 SUPER an FP32 throughput of 56.28 TFLOPS, versus 2.706 TFLOPS for the A400. Pixel rate is 293.1 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 879.3 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s.

Memory is another major split. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. The bandwidth difference is over 10x. The RTX 5080 SUPER's memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 32 Gbps effective, while the A400 runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective.

Power and physical design differ accordingly. The RTX 5080 SUPER has a TDP of 415 W, uses a dual-slot cooler, and requires a single 16-pin power connector. The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, and draws power entirely from the PCIe slot, requiring no external power connector. The A400 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, a figure that does not exist for the RTX 5080 SUPER. The RTX 5080 SUPER is 304 mm long, 137 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. The A400 is 163 mm long and 69 mm tall. The interface also differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the RTX 5080 SUPER versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the A400.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs differ: the RTX 5080 SUPER has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b, while the A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX 5080 SUPER was released later, with a production status of Active and a release date near the end of 2025. The A400 launched in mid-2024 and is also Active. The A400 lists a predecessor (Quadro Turing) and successor (Workstation Ada); the RTX 5080 SUPER lists none.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows no overlap in benchmark suites, so a direct win/loss tally cannot be constructed. Instead, the measurements point to distinct use-case strengths.

The RTX 5080 SUPER delivers massive raw throughput in every measured compute metric. Its FP32 rate of 56.28 TFLOPS is over 20x the A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 879.3 GTexel/s is over 20x the A400's 42.29 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 293.1 GPixel/s is over 10x the A400's 28.19 GPixel/s. The 24 GB GDDR7 memory with 1.02 TB/s bandwidth provides a capacity and bandwidth envelope that the A400's 4 GB GDDR6 at 96.00 GB/s cannot approach. For any workload that stresses memory capacity, high-resolution textures, or large data sets, the RTX 5080 SUPER is the clear choice based on the specification data.

The RTX A400 wins in the only database category where the two can be compared indirectly: percentile rank. The A400 sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 5080 SUPER sits in the 19th. However, this is a function of the different test suites used, not a direct performance comparison. The A400's average score of 6078 comes from nine tests including OpenCL and Vulkan, while the RTX 5080 SUPER's 3075 comes from a single heavy DX12 test. The A400's Passmark G3D score of 5983 and G2D score of 899 indicate balanced general-purpose performance, while its compute score of 2557 is modest. The A400 also has a far lower power requirement at 50 W TDP versus 415 W. It needs no power connector and fits in a single slot at 163 mm length. Those physical attributes make it suitable for compact or low-power systems, though the data does not include thermal or acoustic measurements.

The A400's nearest rival deltas are all within 1% in either direction, showing that its performance profile is typical of its class. The RTX 5080 SUPER's rival deltas range from -3.4% to +3.6%, indicating it sits in a slightly wider performance band relative to its peers. The RTX 5080 SUPER leads the GeForce 820A and GTX 860M, but trails the Quadro P1000 and Arc Pro B60 in the Steel Nomad test. That mixed result suggests the RTX 5080 SUPER is not universally dominant even among its closest database neighbors.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER has 10,752 shading units. The RTX A400 has 768.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER delivers 1.02 TB/s across a 256-bit bus with 24 GB of GDDR7. The RTX A400 delivers 96.00 GB/s across a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER has a TDP of 415 W. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6078. The RTX 5080 SUPER has an average score of 3075.

Q: Are the two cards built on the same process node?

A: No. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A400 uses an 8 nm process at Samsung.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear divide. The RTX 5080 SUPER is a high-power, high-throughput card with 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 24 GB of GDDR7 memory, and a 415 W TDP. Its single benchmark score places it near the Quadro P1000 and Arc Pro B60, both of which slightly outperform it in the Steel Nomad test. The RTX A400 is a low-power, compact card with 2.706 TFLOPS, 4 GB of GDDR6, and a 50 W TDP. Its average score is higher because it is measured across a different set of tests, and its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its score.

The choice depends on the workload. For tasks that require large memory capacity, high bandwidth, and maximum compute throughput, the RTX 5080 SUPER is the only option of the two, based on the specification data. For systems with strict power or space limits, or for workloads that match the A400's measured performance profile, the RTX A400 is the more appropriate part. The data does not show any scenario where the A400 outperforms the RTX 5080 SUPER in a shared benchmark, because no shared benchmark exists. The RTX 5080 SUPER's advantage in every compute metric is overwhelming, but so is its power draw and physical footprint. The RTX A400's advantage is its efficiency and small size, though the database does not include efficiency metrics beyond the TDP figures.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Chip | GB203 | GA107 |

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 45,600 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 378 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Base Clock | 2295 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2617 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR7 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.02 TB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10752 | 768 |

| TMUs | 336 | 24 |

| ROPs | 112 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 84 | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | 336 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 293.1 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 879.3 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 56.28 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 415 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 304 mm | 163 mm |

| Height | 137 mm | 69 mm |

| Width | 40 mm | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2025-12-31 | 2024-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | Not listed |