Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile with Radeon AI PRO R9700, including specs and performance data.

RTX 4080 Mobile
2023
12 GB GDDR6, 110 Watt
59.16
AI PRO R9700
2025, $1,299
32 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
65.29
+10.4%

AI PRO R9700 outperforms RTX 4080 Mobile by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4629
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data28.34
Power efficiency41.8916.95
ArchitectureAda Lovelace (2022−2024)RDNA 4.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameAD104Navi 48
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date3 January 2023 (3 years ago)23 July 2025 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,299

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 cores74244096
Core clock speed1290 MHz1660 MHz
Boost clock speed1665 MHz2920 MHz
Number of transistors35,800 million53,900 million
Manufacturing process technology4 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate386.3747.5
Floating-point processing power24.72 TFLOPS47.84 TFLOPS
ROPs80128
TMUs232256
Tensor Cores232128
Ray Tracing Cores5864
L0 Cacheno data1 MB
L1 Cache7.3 MBno data
L2 Cache48 MB8 MB
L3 Cacheno data64 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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount12 GB32 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed2250 MHz2518 MHz
Memory bandwidth432.0 GB/s644.6 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.76.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.2
Vulkan1.31.3
CUDA8.9-
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.

RTX 4080 Mobile 59.16
AI PRO R9700 65.29
+10.4%

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 4080 Mobile 24751
Samples: 4181
AI PRO R9700 27314
+10.4%
Samples: 120

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 HD148160−170
+8.1%
1440p97
−3%
100−110
4K6570−75
+7.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data8.12
1440pno data12.99
4Kno data18.56

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 171 180−190
+5.3%
Counter-Strike 2 290−300 300−310
+1.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 149 160−170
+7.4%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 180−190 190−200
+5.6%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 142 150−160
+5.6%
Battlefield 5 160−170 180−190
+7.8%
Counter-Strike 2 215 230−240
+7%
Cyberpunk 2077 143 150−160
+4.9%
Far Cry 5 171 180−190
+5.3%
Fortnite 270−280 300−310
+7.9%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 250−260
+7.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+9.8%
Valorant 300−350 350−400
+1.7%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 121 130−140
+7.4%
Battlefield 5 160−170 180−190
+7.8%
Counter-Strike 2 196 210−220
+7.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 300−310
+7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 124 130−140
+4.8%
Dota 2 178 190−200
+6.7%
Far Cry 5 161 170−180
+5.6%
Fortnite 270−280 300−310
+7.9%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 250−260
+7.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 157 170−180
+8.3%
Metro Exodus 146 160−170
+9.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+9.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 334 350−400
+4.8%
Valorant 300−350 350−400
+1.7%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170 180−190
+7.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 121 130−140
+7.4%
Dota 2 165 180−190
+9.1%
Far Cry 5 151 160−170
+6%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 250−260
+7.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+9.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 172 180−190
+4.7%
Valorant 300−350 350−400
+1.7%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 270−280 300−310
+7.9%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 149 160−170
+7.4%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 450−500 500−550
+9.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 122 130−140
+6.6%
Metro Exodus 102 110−120
+7.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+8.6%
Valorant 400−450
+1%
400−450

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 140−150 160−170
+8.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 82 90−95
+9.8%
Far Cry 5 140 150−160
+7.1%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200 210−220
+7.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 140 150−160
+7.1%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 160−170
+6%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 50−55 55−60
+3.8%
Counter-Strike 2 71 75−80
+5.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 144 150−160
+4.2%
Metro Exodus 67 70−75
+4.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 117 120−130
+2.6%
Valorant 336 350−400
+4.2%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110 110−120
+3.8%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85 85−90
+6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 39 40−45
+2.6%
Dota 2 157 170−180
+8.3%
Far Cry 5 91 100−105
+9.9%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150 160−170
+9.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 100−105
+4.2%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 85−90
+7.6%

This is how RTX 4080 Mobile and AI PRO R9700 compete in popular games:

  • AI PRO R9700 is 8% faster in 1080p
  • AI PRO R9700 is 3% faster in 1440p
  • AI PRO R9700 is 8% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 59.16 65.29
Recency 3 January 2023 23 July 2025
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 32 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 110 Watt 300 Watt

RTX 4080 Mobile has 63% lower power consumption.

AI PRO R9700, on the other hand, has a 10% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 167% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon AI PRO R9700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon AI PRO R9700 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.


4.1 965 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 40 votes

Rate Radeon AI PRO R9700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile or Radeon AI PRO R9700, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.