GeForce RTX 5080 vs Arc Pro A30M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc Pro A30M with GeForce RTX 5080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms Pro A30M by a whopping 482% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 403 | 4 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 76 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 49.08 |
| Power efficiency | 22.73 | 18.37 |
| Architecture | Xe-HPG (2022−2024) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | DG2-128 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 August 2022 (4 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 360 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 112 |
| TMUs | 64 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | 84 |
| L1 Cache | 1.5 MB | 10.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 64 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 960.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 30−35
−563%
| 199
+563%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
−517%
| 148
+517%
|
| 4K | 16−18
−531%
| 101
+531%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.02 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.75 |
| 4K | no data | 9.89 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
−301%
|
300−350
+301%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−619%
|
220−230
+619%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
−554%
|
220−230
+554%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 30−35
−790%
|
270−280
+790%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−208%
|
190−200
+208%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
−301%
|
300−350
+301%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−619%
|
220−230
+619%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−376%
|
230−240
+376%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
−260%
|
300−350
+260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−455%
|
300−350
+455%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
−554%
|
220−230
+554%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−215%
|
170−180
+215%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−388%
|
550−600
+388%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−208%
|
190−200
+208%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
−301%
|
300−350
+301%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
−40.4%
|
270−280
+40.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−619%
|
220−230
+619%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−376%
|
230−240
+376%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
−260%
|
300−350
+260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−455%
|
300−350
+455%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
−211%
|
170−180
+211%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−110%
|
65
+110%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
−554%
|
220−230
+554%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−215%
|
170−180
+215%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−908%
|
400−450
+908%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−388%
|
550−600
+388%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−208%
|
190−200
+208%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−619%
|
220−230
+619%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−376%
|
230−240
+376%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−455%
|
300−350
+455%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−215%
|
170−180
+215%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−598%
|
279
+598%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
−260%
|
300−350
+260%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
−554%
|
220−230
+554%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−897%
|
280−290
+897%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−369%
|
500−550
+369%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−596%
|
160−170
+596%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−861%
|
173
+861%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−246%
|
450−500
+246%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−367%
|
190−200
+367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−977%
|
140−150
+977%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−585%
|
220−230
+585%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−750%
|
300−350
+750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−1005%
|
232
+1005%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
−358%
|
150−160
+358%
|
| Palworld | 20−22
−850%
|
190−200
+850%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−400%
|
55
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−593%
|
180−190
+593%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
−1018%
|
120−130
+1018%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−1060%
|
232
+1060%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−336%
|
300−350
+336%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−518%
|
130−140
+518%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1280%
|
65−70
+1280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−950%
|
160−170
+950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−1073%
|
300−350
+1073%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−586%
|
95−100
+586%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−427%
|
75−80
+427%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
−1145%
|
130−140
+1145%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
1440p
High
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
4K
High
| Palworld | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
This is how Arc Pro A30M and RTX 5080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 563% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5080 is 517% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5080 is 531% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 5080 is 1280% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5080 performs better in 58 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.69 | 85.49 |
| Recency | 8 August 2022 | 30 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 360 Watt |
Arc Pro A30M has 620% lower power consumption.
RTX 5080, on the other hand, has a 482% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 20% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc Pro A30M in performance tests.
Be aware that Arc Pro A30M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5080 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
