Radeon Pro 5700 XT vs GeForce RTX 2080

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 2080 with Radeon Pro 5700 XT, including specs and performance data.

RTX 2080
2018, $699
8 GB GDDR6, 215 Watt
44.39
+49.3%

RTX 2080 outperforms Pro 5700 XT by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking99223
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation19.27no data
Power efficiency16.0817.82
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameTU104Navi 10
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date20 September 2018 (8 years ago)4 August 2020 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$699 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores29442560
Core clock speed1515 MHz1243 MHz
Boost clock speed1710 MHz1499 MHz
Number of transistors13,600 million10,300 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)215 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rate314.6239.8
Floating-point processing power10.07 TFLOPS7.675 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs184160
Tensor Cores368no data
Ray Tracing Cores46no data
L1 Cache2.9 MBno data
L2 Cache4 MB4 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth448.0 GB/s384.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-CNo outputs
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.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.86.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
Vulkan1.31.2
CUDA7.5-
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.

RTX 2080 44.39
+49.3%
Pro 5700 XT 29.74

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.

RTX 2080 18573
+49.3%
Samples: 12082
Pro 5700 XT 12443
Samples: 42

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 HD14495−100
−34%
1440p10165−70
−35.6%
4K73
+62.2%
45−50

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.85no data
1440p6.92no data
4K9.58no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 130−140
+53.3%
90−95
Counter-Strike 2 240−250
+51.3%
160−170
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+52.9%
70−75

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 130−140
+53.3%
90−95
Battlefield 5 163
+63%
100−105
Counter-Strike 2 240−250
+51.3%
160−170
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+52.9%
70−75
Far Cry 5 117
+56%
75−80
Fortnite 199
+53.1%
130−140
Forza Horizon 4 156
+56%
100−105
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 209
+49.3%
140−150
Valorant 263
+54.7%
170−180

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 130−140
+53.3%
90−95
Battlefield 5 155
+55%
100−105
Counter-Strike 2 240−250
+51.3%
160−170
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+54.4%
180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+52.9%
70−75
Dota 2 140−150
+56.8%
95−100
Far Cry 5 112
+49.3%
75−80
Far Cry 6 130−140
+52.9%
85−90
Fortnite 173
+57.3%
110−120
Forza Horizon 4 153
+53%
100−105
Grand Theft Auto V 131
+54.1%
85−90
Metro Exodus 90
+50%
60−65
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 188
+56.7%
120−130
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 181
+50.8%
120−130
Valorant 254
+49.4%
170−180

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 145
+52.6%
95−100
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+52.9%
70−75
Dota 2 140−150
+56.8%
95−100
Far Cry 5 106
+51.4%
70−75
Forza Horizon 4 132
+55.3%
85−90
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 169
+53.6%
110−120
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 106
+51.4%
70−75
Valorant 223
+59.3%
140−150

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 156
+56%
100−105

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+50%
80−85
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 300−350
+51.9%
210−220
Far Cry 6 85−90
+58.2%
55−60
Grand Theft Auto V 95−100
+60%
60−65
Metro Exodus 60
+50%
40−45
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+59.1%
110−120
Valorant 247
+54.4%
160−170

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 125
+56.3%
80−85
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+57.1%
35−40
Far Cry 5 99
+52.3%
65−70
Forza Horizon 4 118
+57.3%
75−80
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90−95
+53.3%
60−65

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 128
+50.6%
85−90

4K
High

Atomic Heart 35−40
+54.2%
24−27
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+57.1%
35−40
Far Cry 6 40−45
+51.9%
27−30
Grand Theft Auto V 107
+52.9%
70−75
Metro Exodus 39
+62.5%
24−27
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 76
+52%
50−55
Valorant 234
+56%
150−160

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 76
+52%
50−55
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+57.1%
35−40
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
Dota 2 120−130
+52.5%
80−85
Far Cry 5 59
+68.6%
35−40
Forza Horizon 4 81
+62%
50−55
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 69
+53.3%
45−50

4K
Epic

Fortnite 65
+62.5%
40−45

This is how RTX 2080 and Pro 5700 XT compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2080 is 52% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 2080 is 55% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 2080 is 62% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 44.39 29.74
Recency 20 September 2018 4 August 2020
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 215 Watt 130 Watt

RTX 2080 has a 49% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro 5700 XT, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 2080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 5700 XT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 2080 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro 5700 XT 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 2721 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 2080 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 60 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5700 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce RTX 2080 or Radeon Pro 5700 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.