RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF vs GeForce GTX 980 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile with RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF, including specs and performance data.
PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF outperforms 980 Mobile by a whopping 265% 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 | 306 | 20 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.97 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.50 | 78.13 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 11 August 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.82 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 8960 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | 1337 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100-200 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 136.2 | 374.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.358 TFLOPS | 23.96 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 96 |
| TMUs | 128 | 280 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 70 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 8.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 48 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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 167 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 432.0 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1b |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
API and SDK support
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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | + | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 99
−254%
| 350−400
+254%
|
| 4K | 46
−248%
| 160−170
+248%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.00 | no data |
| 4K | 8.60 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−251%
|
400−450
+251%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−249%
|
150−160
+249%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−251%
|
400−450
+251%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−249%
|
150−160
+249%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−254%
|
230−240
+254%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−233%
|
350−400
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−258%
|
290−300
+258%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
−249%
|
220−230
+249%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−264%
|
280−290
+264%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−238%
|
500−550
+238%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−251%
|
400−450
+251%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−260%
|
850−900
+260%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−249%
|
150−160
+249%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
−257%
|
400−450
+257%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−254%
|
230−240
+254%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−233%
|
350−400
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−258%
|
290−300
+258%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
−249%
|
220−230
+249%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
−257%
|
300−310
+257%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−249%
|
150−160
+249%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−264%
|
280−290
+264%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
−257%
|
300−310
+257%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−238%
|
500−550
+238%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−249%
|
150−160
+249%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
−257%
|
400−450
+257%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−254%
|
230−240
+254%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−258%
|
290−300
+258%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−264%
|
280−290
+264%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
−264%
|
160−170
+264%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−238%
|
500−550
+238%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
−233%
|
350−400
+233%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−257%
|
150−160
+257%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−245%
|
500−550
+245%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−246%
|
90−95
+246%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−249%
|
600−650
+249%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−253%
|
650−700
+253%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−251%
|
200−210
+251%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−242%
|
65−70
+242%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−256%
|
160−170
+256%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−260%
|
180−190
+260%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
−264%
|
80−85
+264%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−255%
|
110−120
+255%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−262%
|
170−180
+262%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−261%
|
65−70
+261%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
−250%
|
210−220
+250%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−246%
|
45−50
+246%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
−233%
|
100−105
+233%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−248%
|
400−450
+248%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−233%
|
100−105
+233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−261%
|
65−70
+261%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−253%
|
240−250
+253%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−248%
|
80−85
+248%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−246%
|
45−50
+246%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−250%
|
70−75
+250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−257%
|
75−80
+257%
|
This is how GTX 980 Mobile and RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF compete in popular games:
- RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF is 254% faster in 1080p
- RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF is 248% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.62 | 67.89 |
| Recency | 21 September 2015 | 11 August 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 70 Watt |
RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF has a 264.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 42.9% lower power consumption.
The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 980 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF 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.
