GeForce GTX 1080 Ti vs Radeon PRO W7600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO W7600 with GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, including specs and performance data.
1080 Ti outperforms PRO W7600 by a moderate 13% 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 | 124 | 95 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 50 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 38.56 | 19.09 |
| Power efficiency | 23.23 | 13.66 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Navi 33 | GP102 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 August 2023 (2 years ago) | 10 March 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
PRO W7600 has 102% better value for money than GTX 1080 Ti.
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 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1481 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2440 MHz | 1582 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,300 million | 11,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 91 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 312.3 | 354.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 11.34 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 88 |
| TMUs | 128 | 224 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2.75 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | no data | 600 Watt |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 11 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 352 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 18 GB/s | 1376 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 484.4 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 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| 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 | no data | 3.0 |
| Ansel | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | + |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 110−120
−17.3%
| 129
+17.3%
|
| 1440p | 70−75
−20%
| 84
+20%
|
| 4K | 55−60
−21.8%
| 67
+21.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.45
−0.5%
| 5.42
+0.5%
|
| 1440p | 8.56
−2.8%
| 8.32
+2.8%
|
| 4K | 10.89
−4.4%
| 10.43
+4.4%
|
- PRO W7600 and GTX 1080 Ti have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
- PRO W7600 and GTX 1080 Ti have nearly equal cost per frame in 1440p
- PRO W7600 and GTX 1080 Ti have nearly equal cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 203
+0%
|
203
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 149
+0%
|
149
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Valorant | 179
+0%
|
179
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
This is how PRO W7600 and GTX 1080 Ti compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 Ti is 17% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Ti is 20% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Ti is 22% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.31 | 44.47 |
| Recency | 3 August 2023 | 10 March 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 11 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 250 Watt |
PRO W7600 has an age advantage of 6 years, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.
GTX 1080 Ti, on the other hand, has a 13.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 37.5% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO W7600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO W7600 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
