GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile vs Quadro RTX 4000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 99 | 103 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 27.61 | 14.93 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | N18E-G3 TU104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 November 2018 (5 years ago) | 2 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | no data |
| Current price | $974 (1.1x MSRP) | $1671 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 4000 has 85% better value for money than RTX 2080 Super Mobile.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 1005 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | 1560 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 222.5 | 299.5 |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Quadro RTX 4000 and GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 13000 MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 416.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | no data | + |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.140 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 7.5 |
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 | 140−150
+1.4%
| 138
−1.4%
|
| 1440p | 95−100
−1.1%
| 96
+1.1%
|
| 4K | 65−70
+0%
| 65
+0%
|
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 39.82 | 39.10 |
| Recency | 13 November 2018 | 2 April 2020 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 150 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro RTX 4000 and GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation card while GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
