Riva 128 vs GeForce RTX 3090

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking24not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation14.90no data
Power efficiency13.80no data
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2024)no data
GPU code nameGA102NV3
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 September 2020 (4 years ago)1 April 1997 (27 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores10496no data
Core clock speed1395 MHz100 MHz
Boost clock speed1695 MHzno data
Number of transistors28,300 million4 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm350 nm
Power consumption (TDP)350 Watt4 Watt
Texture fill rate556.00.1
Floating-point processing power35.58 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1121
TMUs3281
Tensor Cores328no data
Ray Tracing Cores82no data

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16AGP 2x
Length336 mmno data
Width3-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 12-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6XSDR
Maximum RAM amount24 GB4 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1219 MHz100 MHz
Memory bandwidth936.2 GB/s1.6 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x VGA, 1x DB13W3
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)5.0
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.61.0
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2N/A
CUDA8.5-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 September 2020 1 April 1997
Maximum RAM amount 24 GB 4 MB
Chip lithography 8 nm 350 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 350 Watt 4 Watt

RTX 3090 has an age advantage of 23 years, a 614300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 4275% more advanced lithography process.

Riva 128, on the other hand, has 8650% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce RTX 3090 and Riva 128. We've got no test results to judge.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090
GeForce RTX 3090
NVIDIA Riva 128
Riva 128

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


1.2 78988 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3090 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 39 votes

Rate Riva 128 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.