Radeon 880M vs GeForce RTX 5080
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 5080 with Radeon 880M, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms 880M by a whopping 365% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 3 | 286 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 40.41 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 17.83 | 92.01 |
| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) | RDNA 3.5 (2024) |
| GPU code name | GB203 | Strix Point |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 January 2025 (recently) | 15 July 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 10752 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 2295 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2617 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 45,600 million | 34,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 879.3 | 92.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 56.28 TFLOPS | 2.97 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 128 | 16 |
| TMUs | 336 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | 336 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 84 | 12 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 304 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |
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 | GDDR7 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1875 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 960.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 10.1 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 193
+422%
| 37
−422%
|
| 1440p | 159
+591%
| 23
−591%
|
| 4K | 109
+419%
| 21−24
−419%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.18 | no data |
| 1440p | 6.28 | no data |
| 4K | 9.17 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 240−250
+435%
|
46
−435%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+398%
|
42
−398%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+463%
|
40−45
−463%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 240−250
+624%
|
34
−624%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+153%
|
75−80
−153%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+533%
|
33
−533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+463%
|
40−45
−463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 200−210
+285%
|
54
−285%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+202%
|
100−105
−202%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+347%
|
75−80
−347%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 240−250
+353%
|
50−55
−353%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+149%
|
70−75
−149%
|
| Valorant | 600−650
+324%
|
140−150
−324%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 240−250
+1071%
|
21
−1071%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+153%
|
75−80
−153%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+704%
|
26
−704%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+21.4%
|
220−230
−21.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+463%
|
40−45
−463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 200−210
+324%
|
49
−324%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+202%
|
100−105
−202%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+347%
|
75−80
−347%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 240−250
+353%
|
50−55
−353%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+222%
|
54
−222%
|
| Metro Exodus | 220−230
+446%
|
40−45
−446%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+149%
|
70−75
−149%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 400−450
+662%
|
53
−662%
|
| Valorant | 600−650
+324%
|
140−150
−324%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+153%
|
75−80
−153%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 222
+957%
|
21
−957%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+463%
|
40−45
−463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 200−210
+352%
|
46
−352%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+347%
|
75−80
−347%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+149%
|
70−75
−149%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 289
+776%
|
33
−776%
|
| Valorant | 600−650
+324%
|
140−150
−324%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+202%
|
100−105
−202%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+629%
|
21−24
−629%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+277%
|
130−140
−277%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+664%
|
22
−664%
|
| Metro Exodus | 170−180
+613%
|
24−27
−613%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2.3%
|
170−180
−2.3%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+171%
|
170−180
−171%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+270%
|
50−55
−270%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 140−150
+689%
|
18−20
−689%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
+371%
|
40−45
−371%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+551%
|
45−50
−551%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 244
+713%
|
30−33
−713%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+251%
|
40−45
−251%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90
+500%
|
14−16
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 109
+1111%
|
9−10
−1111%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 180−190
+450%
|
30−35
−450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+747%
|
14−16
−747%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 242
+796%
|
27−30
−796%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+210%
|
100−110
−210%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+386%
|
27−30
−386%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+300%
|
9−10
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+775%
|
8−9
−775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+643%
|
21−24
−643%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+824%
|
30−35
−824%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+405%
|
18−20
−405%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+316%
|
18−20
−316%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how RTX 5080 and Radeon 880M compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 422% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5080 is 591% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5080 is 419% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5080 is 1111% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is ahead in 61 test (95%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 93.67 | 20.14 |
| Recency | 30 January 2025 | 15 July 2024 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 15 Watt |
RTX 5080 has a 365.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 6 months.
Radeon 880M, on the other hand, has 2300% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 880M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 5080 is a desktop card while Radeon 880M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
