GeForce RTX 5080 vs Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) with GeForce RTX 5080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms R5 (Stoney Ridge) by a whopping 5688% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 992 | 5 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 36.63 |
| Power efficiency | 2.25 | 16.27 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Stoney Ridge | GB203 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 192 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-45 Watt | 360 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 128 |
| TMUs | no data | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | no data | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 960.0 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 | no data | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 10.1 |
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 | 9
−5456%
| 500−550
+5456%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4
−5650%
|
230−240
+5650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−5456%
|
500−550
+5456%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2
−5400%
|
110−120
+5400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−5400%
|
110−120
+5400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−5400%
|
110−120
+5400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−4900%
|
300−310
+4900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−5456%
|
500−550
+5456%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−5400%
|
110−120
+5400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−5400%
|
110−120
+5400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−5400%
|
110−120
+5400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−5456%
|
500−550
+5456%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−5456%
|
500−550
+5456%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 9−10
−5456%
|
500−550
+5456%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−5400%
|
55−60
+5400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5567%
|
170−180
+5567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−5400%
|
55−60
+5400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−5567%
|
850−900
+5567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−5650%
|
230−240
+5650%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−5567%
|
850−900
+5567%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−5400%
|
55−60
+5400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−5400%
|
110−120
+5400%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−5525%
|
900−950
+5525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−5400%
|
55−60
+5400%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
This is how R5 (Stoney Ridge) and RTX 5080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 5456% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 (Stoney Ridge) is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R5 (Stoney Ridge) surpassed RTX 5080 in all 17 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.47 | 85.08 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 30 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 360 Watt |
R5 (Stoney Ridge) has 2900% lower power consumption.
RTX 5080, on the other hand, has a 5687.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 5080 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
