Radeon PRO W7900 vs GeForce GTX 1080

Place in the ranking	103	11
Place by popularity	63	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	19.33	17.43
Power efficiency	15.51	17.74
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	GP104	Navi 31
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	27 May 2016 (8 years ago)	13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$599	$3,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1080 has 11% better value for money than PRO W7900.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	2560	6144
Core clock speed	1607 MHz	1855 MHz
Boost clock speed	1733 MHz	2495 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	295 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	94 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	277.3	958.1
Floating-point processing power	8.873 TFLOPS	61.32 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	192
TMUs	160	384
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	96

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	267 mm	280 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	3-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)	500 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	2x 8-pin
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR5X	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	48 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	10 GB/s	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	320 GB/s	864.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI	3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost	3.0	no data
VR Ready	+	no data
Ansel	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1080 40.47

PRO W7900 75.83
+87.4%

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.

GTX 1080 15559

PRO W7900 29154
+87.4%

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	126 −82.5%	230−240 +82.5%
1440p	75 −86.7%	140−150 +86.7%
4K	60 −83.3%	110−120 +83.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.75 +266%	17.39 −266%
1440p	7.99 +258%	28.56 −258%
4K	9.98 +264%	36.35 −264%

GTX 1080 has 266% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1080 has 258% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1080 has 264% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	85−90 −76.5%	150−160 +76.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 −83.9%	160−170 +83.9%
Elden Ring	140−150 −81.8%	260−270 +81.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	84 −78.6%	150−160 +78.6%
Counter-Strike 2	85−90 −76.5%	150−160 +76.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 −83.9%	160−170 +83.9%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 −76.8%	350−400 +76.8%
Metro Exodus	111 −80.2%	200−210 +80.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	114 −84.2%	210−220 +84.2%
Valorant	160−170 −85.2%	300−310 +85.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	130 −84.6%	240−250 +84.6%
Counter-Strike 2	85−90 −76.5%	150−160 +76.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 −83.9%	160−170 +83.9%
Dota 2	113 −85.8%	210−220 +85.8%
Elden Ring	140−150 −81.8%	260−270 +81.8%
Far Cry 5	75 −86.7%	140−150 +86.7%
Fortnite	158 −83.5%	290−300 +83.5%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 −76.8%	350−400 +76.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	119 −84.9%	220−230 +84.9%
Metro Exodus	83 −80.7%	150−160 +80.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	242 −86%	450−500 +86%
Red Dead Redemption 2	53 −79.2%	95−100 +79.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	142 −83.1%	260−270 +83.1%
Valorant	160−170 −85.2%	300−310 +85.2%
World of Tanks	272 −83.8%	500−550 +83.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	73 −78.1%	130−140 +78.1%
Counter-Strike 2	47 −80.9%	85−90 +80.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 −83.9%	160−170 +83.9%
Dota 2	100 −80%	180−190 +80%
Far Cry 5	179 −67.6%	300−310 +67.6%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 −76.8%	350−400 +76.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	88 −81.8%	160−170 +81.8%
Valorant	160−170 −85.2%	300−310 +85.2%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	72 −80.6%	130−140 +80.6%
Elden Ring	80−85 −80.7%	150−160 +80.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	72 −80.6%	130−140 +80.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −71.4%	300−310 +71.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35 −85.7%	65−70 +85.7%
World of Tanks	250−260 −75.8%	450−500 +75.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	72 −80.6%	130−140 +80.6%
Counter-Strike 2	28 −78.6%	50−55 +78.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −78.6%	75−80 +78.6%
Far Cry 5	118 −86.4%	220−230 +86.4%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −86.4%	220−230 +86.4%
Metro Exodus	82 −82.9%	150−160 +82.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 −83.1%	130−140 +83.1%
Valorant	120−130 −86%	240−250 +86%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −78.6%	75−80 +78.6%
Dota 2	74 −75.7%	130−140 +75.7%
Elden Ring	40−45 −75%	70−75 +75%
Grand Theft Auto V	74 −75.7%	130−140 +75.7%
Metro Exodus	28 −78.6%	50−55 +78.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	106 −79.2%	190−200 +79.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21 −66.7%	35−40 +66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	74 −75.7%	130−140 +75.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	42 −78.6%	75−80 +78.6%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −78.6%	75−80 +78.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −66.7%	30−33 +66.7%
Dota 2	129 −86%	240−250 +86%
Far Cry 5	59 −86.4%	110−120 +86.4%
Fortnite	54 −85.2%	100−105 +85.2%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −79.1%	120−130 +79.1%
Valorant	65−70 −76.5%	120−130 +76.5%

This is how GTX 1080 and PRO W7900 compete in popular games:

PRO W7900 is 83% faster in 1080p
PRO W7900 is 87% faster in 1440p
PRO W7900 is 83% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	40.47	75.83
Recency	27 May 2016	13 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	48 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	295 Watt

GTX 1080 has 63.9% lower power consumption.

PRO W7900, on the other hand, has a 87.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1080 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W7900 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.