RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs GeForce RTX 2080 Super
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2080 Super with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Super outperforms RTX 2000 Ada Generation by a moderate 15% 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 | 86 | 117 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 23.31 | 36.86 |
| Power efficiency | 14.43 | 44.98 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | AD107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 July 2019 (7 years ago) | 12 February 2024 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 58% better value for money than RTX 2080 Super.
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 | 3072 | 2816 |
| Core clock speed | 1650 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1815 MHz | 2130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 348.5 | 187.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 11.15 TFLOPS | 12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 192 | 88 |
| Tensor Cores | 384 | 88 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 22 |
| L1 Cache | 3 MB | 2.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 12 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1937 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 495.9 GB/s | 256.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
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 | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 8.9 |
| 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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 138
+15%
| 120−130 |
| 1440p | 92
+15%
| 80−85 |
| 4K | 70
+16.7%
| 60−65 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.07
+6.3%
| 5.41 |
| 1440p | 7.60
+6.3%
| 8.11 |
| 4K | 9.99
+7.7%
| 10.82 |
- RTX 2080 Super has 6% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Super has 6% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Super has 8% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+20.8%
|
120−130 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+19%
|
210−220 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+17.9%
|
95−100 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 130−140
+20.9%
|
110−120 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+20.8%
|
120−130 |
| Battlefield 5 | 122
+22%
|
100−105 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+19%
|
210−220 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+17.9%
|
95−100 |
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+14.7%
|
95−100 |
| Fortnite | 253
+15%
|
220−230 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 143
+19.2%
|
120−130 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 173
+15.3%
|
150−160 |
| Valorant | 301
+15.8%
|
260−270 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+20.8%
|
120−130 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110
+15.8%
|
95−100 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+19%
|
210−220 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+15.8%
|
240−250 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+17.9%
|
95−100 |
| Dota 2 | 138
+15%
|
120−130 |
| Far Cry 5 | 105
+16.7%
|
90−95 |
| Fortnite | 185
+15.6%
|
160−170 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 142
+18.3%
|
120−130 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 113
+18.9%
|
95−100 |
| Metro Exodus | 93
+16.3%
|
80−85 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 168
+20%
|
140−150 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 195
+14.7%
|
170−180 |
| Valorant | 283
+17.9%
|
240−250 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 131
+19.1%
|
110−120 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 89
+18.7%
|
75−80 |
| Dota 2 | 129
+17.3%
|
110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 106
+17.8%
|
90−95 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 133
+20.9%
|
110−120 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 159
+22.3%
|
130−140 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 109
+14.7%
|
95−100 |
| Valorant | 217
+20.6%
|
180−190 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 180
+20%
|
150−160 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+15.5%
|
110−120 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+15.5%
|
290−300 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−105
+17.6%
|
85−90 |
| Metro Exodus | 63
+26%
|
50−55 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+16.7%
|
150−160 |
| Valorant | 273
+18.7%
|
230−240 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 108
+20%
|
90−95 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+26.7%
|
45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+17.6%
|
85−90 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 117
+17%
|
100−105 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95−100
+15.3%
|
85−90 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 127
+15.5%
|
110−120 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+30%
|
30−33 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+15%
|
100−105 |
| Metro Exodus | 40
+33.3%
|
30−33 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+21.5%
|
65−70 |
| Valorant | 262
+19.1%
|
220−230 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+23.6%
|
55−60 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
+14.8%
|
27−30 |
| Dota 2 | 116
+16%
|
100−105 |
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+22%
|
50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 81
+15.7%
|
70−75 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 68
+23.6%
|
55−60 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 64
+16.4%
|
55−60 |
This is how RTX 2080 Super and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Super is 15% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Super is 15% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Super is 17% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 46.44 | 40.53 |
| Recency | 23 July 2019 | 12 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 70 Watt |
RTX 2080 Super has a 15% higher aggregate performance score.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 58% more advanced lithography process, and 72% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the RTX 2000 Ada Generation in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2080 Super is a desktop graphics card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
