NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison because the NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and its percentile rank sits at 50, which reflects the absence of measured results rather than actual performance parity. The GeForce RTX 5080, by contrast, holds a full suite of benchmark results with an average score of 56,083 and a percentile rank of 87 across all GPUs.

The RTX 5080's strongest recorded result comes from Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 255,450, slightly ahead of its Geekbench OpenCL result of 235,901. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the card posts 8,637 points, which is a moderate result for a modern high-end part. PassMark G3D shows 36,565, while PassMark GPU Compute reaches 21,789. The DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 scores are notably lower at 208 and 151 respectively, while DirectX 11 posts 324 and DirectX 9 reaches 389. PassMark G2D, which measures 2D desktop workloads, records 1,415.

Since the Rubin GPU has no benchmark scores, there are no direct head-to-head deltas to report. The nearest rivals for the RTX 5080 provide context for its positioning. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE averages 57,367, which is 2.2% ahead of the RTX 5080. The AMD Radeon 8060S averages 55,757, placing it 0.6% behind the RTX 5080. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB averages 55,698, trailing by 0.7%, and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X averages 54,828, which is 2.3% behind.

These margins indicate that the RTX 5080 sits in a tightly contested performance band, with the closest rival ahead by only 2.2% and the closest rival behind by only 0.6%. The data suggests that the RTX 5080's average performance is competitive with, but not decisively superior to, several AMD offerings in the same tier. Without any recorded benchmarks for the Rubin GPU, the database cannot establish a measured performance relationship between the two NVIDIA parts.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce RTX 5080 wins in every category where measurable data exists, simply because the Rubin GPU has no benchmark results recorded. The RTX 5080's wins are evident across DirectX 10, 11, and 12 tests, OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads, and 3D rendering via Steel Nomad. Its PassMark G3D score of 36,565 indicates strong rasterization performance, while the GPU Compute score of 21,789 shows capable general-purpose compute throughput.

The Rubin GPU wins in architectural capacity and memory provisioning. It offers 288 GB of HBM4 memory compared to the RTX 5080's 16 GB of GDDR7. Its memory bus is 16,384 bits wide versus 256 bits, and bandwidth reaches 22.1 TB/s compared to 960.0 GB/s. The shading unit count favors the Rubin GPU at 28,672 versus 10,752, and its tensor core count of 896 more than doubles the RTX 5080's 336. The Rubin GPU's FP32 throughput is 130.0 TFLOPS versus 56.28 TFLOPS, and its FP16 rate is 260.0 TFLOPS compared to 56.28 TFLOPS.

For real-time graphics workloads, the RTX 5080 holds advantages in pixel throughput, recording 293.1 GPixel/s versus the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s. The RTX 5080 also has 112 ROPs compared to just 24 on the Rubin GPU. This suggests the Rubin GPU is not designed for traditional rasterization output; its architecture prioritizes compute density and memory capacity over pixel-fill operations. The Rubin GPU's texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s exceeds the RTX 5080's 879.3 GTexel/s, which indicates strong texture-processing capability for compute-heavy workloads.

The use-case split is clear: the RTX 5080 targets consumer gaming and workstation graphics with display outputs, a dual-slot cooler, and PCIe 5.0 x16 connectivity. The Rubin GPU targets server deployments with an SXM module form factor, no display outputs, and PCIe 6.0 x16 connectivity. The RTX 5080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Rubin GPU reports N/A for all graphics APIs. This reinforces that the Rubin GPU is not a client-facing graphics product.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 5080 uses the GB203 chip built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 378 mm² and contains 45,600 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 120.6 million per mm². The Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip on the Rubin architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. Its die is substantially larger at 1,456 mm² and packs 336,000 million transistors, giving a density of 230.8 million per mm².

The transistor counts differ by a factor of roughly 7.4, and the die size differs by a factor of roughly 3.9. This means the Rubin GPU achieves more than double the transistor density of the RTX 5080, reflecting the denser 3 nm process. The Rubin GPU's power envelope is 2,300 W with a suggested PSU of 2,700 W, while the RTX 5080 has a TDP of 360 W and a suggested PSU of 750 W.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The RTX 5080 uses 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus with 960.0 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1875 MHz (30 Gbps effective). The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16,384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The Rubin GPU's memory bandwidth is roughly 23 times higher than the RTX 5080's, and its capacity is 18 times greater. The memory bus width difference is a factor of 64.

The RTX 5080 has a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boost clock of 2617 MHz. The Rubin GPU has a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost clock of 2267 MHz. Despite the lower base clock, the Rubin GPU's boost clock reaches within 350 MHz of the RTX 5080's boost, which is notable given the far larger die and higher transistor count.

Ray tracing cores are present on the RTX 5080 at 84 units, while the Rubin GPU reports no ray tracing core count in the database. Tensor cores differ as well: 336 on the RTX 5080 versus 896 on the Rubin GPU. The RTX 5080 delivers FP32 at 56.28 TFLOPS with FP16 at 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The Rubin GPU delivers FP32 at 130.0 TFLOPS and FP16 at 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), meaning its FP16 throughput doubles its FP32 rate.

The RTX 5080 uses a single 16-pin power connector and a dual-slot cooler, measuring 304 mm in length, 137 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Rubin GPU uses an SXM module with no specified dimensions and no power connector details. The bus interface differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the RTX 5080 versus PCIe 6.0 x16 for the Rubin GPU. Display outputs exist only on the RTX 5080, which provides one HDMI 2.1b and three DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. The Rubin GPU has no outputs.

FAQ

Q: Does the NVIDIA Rubin GPU outperform the RTX 5080 in any recorded benchmark?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark results for the Rubin GPU. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and it has no nearest rivals listed. The RTX 5080 holds all recorded benchmark scores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 memory, while the RTX 5080 has 16 GB of GDDR7. The Rubin GPU's memory bus is 16,384 bits wide with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth, compared to the RTX 5080's 256-bit bus with 960.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 2.3 times the RTX 5080's 56.28 TFLOPS. For FP16, the Rubin GPU reaches 260.0 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX 5080 maintains 56.28 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: Are both GPUs intended for the same use case?

A: No. The RTX 5080 is a consumer graphics card with display outputs, a dual-slot cooler, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU is a server module with an SXM form factor, no display outputs, and no graphics API support recorded.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The RTX 5080 is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC with a 378 mm² die and 45,600 million transistors. The Rubin GPU uses a 3 nm process at TSMC with a 1,456 mm² die and 336,000 million transistors. The Rubin GPU achieves 230.8 million transistors per mm² versus 120.6 million per mm² for the RTX 5080.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The RTX 5080 has a TDP of 360 W with a suggested PSU of 750 W. The Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2,300 W with a suggested PSU of 2,700 W. The Rubin GPU's power draw is over six times higher than the RTX 5080's.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 | NVIDIA Rubin GPU |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Rubin |

| Process node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 45,600 million | 336,000 million |

| Die size | 378 mm² | 1456 mm² |

| Transistor density | 120.6M / mm² | 230.8M / mm² |

| Base clock | 2295 MHz | 700 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2617 MHz | 2267 MHz |

| Memory size | 16 GB | 288 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR7 | HBM4 |

| Memory bus width | 256 bit | 16384 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 960.0 GB/s | 22.1 TB/s |

| Memory clock | 1875 MHz 30 Gbps effective | 2695 MHz 10.8 Gbps effective |

| Shading units | 10752 | 28672 |

| TMUs | 336 | 896 |

| ROPs | 112 | 24 |

| RT cores | 84 | N/A |

| Tensor cores | 336 | 896 |

| Pixel rate | 293.1 GPixel/s | 54.41 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 879.3 GTexel/s | 2,031.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 56.28 TFLOPS | 130.0 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1) | 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 360 W | 2300 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | SXM Module |

| Power connectors | 1x 16-pin | N/A |

| Suggested PSU | 750 W | 2700 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b | No outputs |

| DirectX support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL support | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release date | 2025-01-29 | 2025-12-31 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 40 | Server Blackwell |

| Successor | GeForce 60 | N/A |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | N/A |