NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The data presents a stark contrast between two NVIDIA products aimed at entirely different workloads. The GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER is a client-facing graphics card with a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3075, placing it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Rubin GPU, a server-class accelerator, has no recorded benchmarks in the database, meaning no direct head-to-head benchmark wins can be established between the two. This absence of comparative data is itself the most informative finding.

The RTX 5080 SUPER wins on any client-side rendering workload that requires a display output. It carries 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b connections, whereas the Rubin GPU lists "No outputs." The 5080 SUPER also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU reports "N/A" for all three APIs, confirming it is not designed for conventional graphics pipelines.

The Rubin GPU wins on raw compute capacity. Its FP32 throughput is 130.0 TFLOPS versus 56.28 TFLOPS on the 5080 SUPER, a 2.31x advantage. Its FP16 throughput is 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) on the 5080 SUPER, a 4.62x advantage. These figures indicate the Rubin GPU is built for dense numerical workloads, while the 5080 SUPER balances graphics and compute.

The nearest rivals for the 5080 SUPER provide context for its positioning. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 3163, which is 2.8% higher. The Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3182, 3.4% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983, 3.1% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 2967, 3.6% lower. The 5080 SUPER sits within a narrow band of roughly 3% above or below these older or lower-tier cards in this specific benchmark, indicating its 3DMark score is modest relative to its architectural generation.

Architecture Differences

The two chips diverge at every fundamental level. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses the GB203 chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 120.6M per mm². The Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip built on Rubin architecture on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 230.8M per mm². The Rubin GPU has 7.37x more transistors, a 3.85x larger die, and a 1.91x higher transistor density.

Memory subsystems could not be more different. The 5080 SUPER uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus, delivering 22.1 TB/s bandwidth. That is 12x more capacity and 21.7x more bandwidth. The memory clock differs accordingly: 2000 MHz with 32 Gbps effective on the 5080 SUPER versus 2695 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective on the Rubin GPU. The Rubin GPU's advantage comes from its massive bus width, not raw clock speed.

The compute units scale similarly. The 5080 SUPER has 10752 shading units, 336 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 84 RT cores, and 336 tensor cores. The Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units (2.67x), 896 TMUs (2.67x), but only 24 ROPs (0.21x). The Rubin GPU has 896 tensor cores (2.67x), and its RT core count is listed as null in the database, indicating no ray tracing hardware is recorded. The ROP disparity is striking: the 5080 SUPER delivers 293.1 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 54.41 GPixel/s on the Rubin GPU. The texture rates tell the opposite story: 879.3 GTexel/s on the 5080 SUPER versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s on the Rubin GPU, a 2.31x advantage for the server part.

Clock behavior also differs. The 5080 SUPER has a base clock of 2295 MHz and boost of 2617 MHz. The Rubin GPU has a base clock of 700 MHz and boost of 2267 MHz. The Rubin GPU's base clock is dramatically lower, suggesting it is designed for sustained throughput at lower frequencies, while its boost clock closes much of the gap. The 5080 SUPER runs at a consistently high frequency, suited for interactive workloads.

Power and form factor diverge completely. The 5080 SUPER has a TDP of 415 W, fits a dual-slot design, uses 1x 16-pin power connector, and measures 304 mm in length, 137 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W, uses an SXM Module slot width, has no power connector listed, and requires a 2700 W suggested PSU. The Rubin GPU has no listed dimensions, consistent with a server module rather than a plug-in card. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 on the 5080 SUPER versus PCIe 6.0 x16 on the Rubin GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products. The wins count is 0 for both. This is expected given their different target markets. The 5080 SUPER has exactly one benchmark record: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at a score of 3075. The Rubin GPU has zero benchmark records and an average benchmark score of 0. The percentile ranking tells the story: the 5080 SUPER sits at the 19th percentile of all GPUs, while the Rubin GPU sits at the 50th percentile, a default value reflecting no recorded performance data.

Without a shared benchmark, the closest comparison comes from the 5080 SUPER's nearest rivals. The Quadro P1000 exceeds it by 2.8% (3163 versus 3075). The Intel Arc Pro B60 exceeds it by 3.4% (3182 versus 3075). The GeForce 820A trails by 3.1% (2983 versus 3075). The GeForce GTX 860M trails by 3.6% (2967 versus 3075). These deltas are all within a 7-point spread, meaning the 5080 SUPER's 3DMark score is not decisively higher than these older competitors. This suggests the 5080 SUPER's value lies in features beyond raw 3DMark performance, such as its 24 GB GDDR7 memory, PCIe 5.0 interface, and modern API support.

The FP32 and FP16 figures provide a proxy for compute comparison. The Rubin GPU's FP32 of 130.0 TFLOPS is 2.31x the 5080 SUPER's 56.28 TFLOPS. The Rubin GPU's FP16 of 260.0 TFLOPS is 4.62x the 5080 SUPER's 56.28 TFLOPS. In texture throughput, the Rubin GPU's 2,031.2 GTexel/s is 2.31x the 5080 SUPER's 879.3 GTexel/s. These ratios are consistent, indicating the Rubin GPU is built for proportional scaling across compute and texture work, while the 5080 SUPER's pixel rate advantage (293.1 versus 54.41 GPixel/s, a 5.39x gap) shows its ROP-heavy design for rasterization.

Memory bandwidth differences reinforce the compute split. The Rubin GPU's 22.1 TB/s is 21.7x the 5080 SUPER's 1.02 TB/s. The bus width difference is even larger: 16384 bits versus 256 bits, a 64x gap. The Rubin GPU's HBM4 memory operates at a lower effective speed (10.8 Gbps versus 32 Gbps) but compensates with sheer width. The 5080 SUPER's GDDR7 runs faster per pin, but the Rubin GPU moves vastly more data per cycle.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division: the GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER is for interactive graphics and display output, while the Rubin GPU is for server-side compute with no display capability. The 5080 SUPER has a launch MSRP of 999 USD. The Rubin GPU has no launch MSRP recorded.

Choose the 5080 SUPER if the workload requires any of these: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, HDMI or DisplayPort output, a dual-slot PCIe card, or a 415 W power envelope. Its 24 GB GDDR7 memory, 256-bit bus, and 1.02 TB/s bandwidth support high-resolution textures. Its 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores provide ray tracing and AI acceleration within a client GPU. Its 112 ROPs deliver 293.1 GPixel/s, making it suited for rasterized rendering. Its base clock of 2295 MHz and boost of 2617 MHz keep it responsive in real-time scenarios.

Choose the Rubin GPU if the workload requires maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, massive memory capacity, or extreme bandwidth. Its 288 GB HBM4 memory, 16384-bit bus, and 22.1 TB/s bandwidth dwarf the 5080 SUPER. Its 28672 shading units and 896 tensor cores provide 2.67x more parallel execution resources. Its FP16 260.0 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio is optimized for mixed-precision training or inference. Its 2300 W TDP and 2700 W suggested PSU indicate a data center installation, not a desktop. Its PCIe 6.0 x16 interface is forward-looking. Its lack of display outputs and API support confirms it is not a graphics card in the traditional sense.

The 5080 SUPER's 3DMark score of 3075 places it at the 19th percentile, with its nearest rivals within 3.6% in either direction. This indicates its benchmark standing is not exceptional, but its feature set and power efficiency (415 W versus 2300 W) make it a balanced client option. The Rubin GPU's 50th percentile with no recorded benchmarks is a placeholder, not a performance claim. The database cannot rank it without data.

FAQ

Q: Does the Rubin GPU support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The database lists DirectX as "N/A" for the Rubin GPU. The GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Rubin GPU has 22.1 TB/s bandwidth from HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 1.02 TB/s from GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Rubin GPU has 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has display outputs?

A: Only the RTX 5080 SUPER has display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The Rubin GPU lists "No outputs."

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER delivers 56.28 TFLOPS FP32. The Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, a 2.31x advantage.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare to the RTX 5080 SUPER in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3182 (3.4% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 3163 (2.8% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983 (3.1% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 2967 (3.6% lower). The RTX 5080 SUPER scores 3075.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products, based solely on the recorded data:

• Architecture: Blackwell 2.0 (RTX 5080 SUPER) versus Rubin (Rubin GPU)
• Chip: GB203 versus GR100
• Generation: GeForce 50 versus Server Rubin (Rxx)
• Process Node: 5 nm versus 3 nm
• Transistors: 45,600 million versus 336,000 million
• Die Size: 378 mm² versus 1456 mm²
• Transistor Density: 120.6M per mm² versus 230.8M per mm²
• Base Clock: 2295 MHz versus 700 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2617 MHz versus 2267 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2000 MHz 32 Gbps effective versus 2695 MHz 10.8 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 24 GB versus 288 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR7 versus HBM4
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 16384 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 1.02 TB/s versus 22.1 TB/s
• Shading Units: 10752 versus 28672
• TMUs: 336 versus 896
• ROPs: 112 versus 24
• RT Cores: 84 versus null (not recorded)
• Tensor Cores: 336 versus 896
• Pixel Rate: 293.1 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 879.3 GTexel/s versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s
• FP32: 56.28 TFLOPS versus 130.0 TFLOPS
• FP16: 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 415 W versus 2300 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus SXM Module
• Power Connectors: 1x 16-pin versus null (not listed)
• Suggested PSU: null versus 2700 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 6.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b 3x DisplayPort 2.1b versus No outputs
• APIs: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 versus N/A for all
• Dimensions: 304 mm x 137 mm x 40 mm versus null (not listed)
• Predecessor: null versus Server Blackwell
• Launch MSRP: 999 USD versus null