NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Founders Edition

[Darmok N Jalad]

Either that or designing a larger monolithic chip. Either way, there's opportunity here.

The other baffling thing with rDNA3 was the shaders. They doubled the shader count per CU for, apparently, 0benefit. The RT performance per CU isnt any better than rDNA2, but it DOES bloat the die sizes up for no reason.

Honestly they would have been better off just taking rDNA2 and expanding it on the newer nodes instead.

I think the failure of RDNA3 to be a better competitor to Ada is unfairly laid on the MCM approach though it didn't help with power usage. RDNA3 had two misses: slightly inferior node to Nvidia (even 5% can be enough in this contest) and missing its frequency targets. Judging from AMD's slides, RDNA 3 should have clocked about 15% higher. RDNA 4 leaks indicate that they may have fixed the second issue. As for costs, the packaging for the MCM approach is more expensive, because of the higher bandwidth between the MCDs and the GCD.

I think it just goes to show how tough a game this is. Failure to execute can range from an entirely failed product to missing targets by 5-10%. Both result in a perceived “loss” to the community. Just look at how massively Intel has struggled in various ways, and their $259 GPU is “well received” by reviewers and enthusiasts. We can’t have it both ways—expecting innovation and risk-taking, only to pound them into the ground when that approach fails. People want big gains without regressions and delays. It’s a breeding ground for disappointment.

 

[AnotherReader]

From an interview with AMD at (and immediately after) the 7900XTX's launch event, engineer(s) basically explained that they'd missed their internal clock targets due to instabilities found with the MCM design.

So as much as it pains me to see chiplets fail for GPUs right now, I think the blame for RDNA3's disappointing launch can be squarely blamed on chiplets.

I'm just hoping AMD haven't given up on the idea completely. Large dies on cutting-edge, highly contested process nodes is really hurting performance/$ for us consumers.

The MI300X shows that chiplets for GPUs work; unfortunately, that requires expensive packaging and even more expensive base dies so it's infeasible for anything short of a 5090.

 

[LastDudeALive]

Yeah, actual IPC appears to be zero.

IPC for the CUDA cores, yeah, no architecture change other than the reconfiguration to FP32/INT32 on every unit, which obviously isn't doing anything for gaming. Regular performance increase comes entirely from the slightly higher speed and much better memory bandwidth of GDDR7.

For the RT cores, I suspect there is a bigger increase, but the overall numbers seem to be dragged down by identical performance in Doom Eternal (which is lightweight) and a huge performance regression in Elden Ring (which obviously has a driver problem with the game or the uncapped FPS mod). I think if you took those out, you'd see a better performance jump gen-on-gen.

And for AI, the "2x AI TOPS" number is when you use the new FP4 compute.

 

[AnotherReader]

Yeah, I only mentioned it because it wasn't a ton faster than 400 series lol. My perception of 500 series is way better than 5000 series kinda funny that it's 400-500/4000-5000 though lol.

I remember being impressed that they were able to fix it that quickly. Of course, given that the 480 was supposed to come out in late 2009, they probably worked on it for longer than the apparent turnaround time.

 

[Hecate91]

I said the same thing but people disagreed cause...I don't know, they can't do math or something? 46% increased per per dollar, by the market leader - gen on gen. People 2 weeks ago were literally attacking me when I suggested that the competitor should release a GPU at teh same price for 40% more performance gen on gen....they said that's impossible

That math just isn't math-ing when you compare it to the 4080 Super, because the 4080 was replaced with the 4080S, and you can't get the 4080 Super because Nvidia conveniently ended 4000 series production before the 50 series launch. You want the a competitor to release a 40% faster gpu but you'll still buy the one 10% faster than the previous gen.

Ok, so which AMD gpus offer "better" performance then nvidia for a cheaper price?

The 7800XT,7900XT and 7900XTX were all solid competition while being cheaper, but since you put better in quotes I expect you don't care about the raster performance.

 

[mb194dc]

Pretty embarrasing uplift after two years. Nvidia doing an Intel.

 

[Visible Noise]

Terrible generational performance uplift over the 4080, yet it still gets the "highly recommended" award. Also throwing mud at AMD on an Nvidia review? Oh come on. I hope AMD drops dgpus all together at this point and focuses on apus like strix halo, because no matter what at every chance reviewers bash on any competition.

Better than anything AMD will produce in the next 2-4 years.

 

[LastDudeALive]

Ok, so which AMD gpus offer "better" performance then nvidia for a cheaper price?

In regular performance, the entire RX 7000 series? AMD undercut Nvidia by ~$50-100 at every tier, sometimes more. 7900 XTX vs 4080/4080S, 7900 XT vs 4070-Ti, 7800 XT vs 4070. The most egregious one was the 7900 GRE having significantly better performance than the 4070 Super and being $50 less. But you can just look at the Steam Hardware survey and see how much the price/performance matters when you're always 2 years late offering features with worse quality.

 

[rv8000]

Yeah I've expressing the same thought. The performance crown was there for the taking. AMD once again misses an open opportunity.

Doesn’t make any sense in the grand scheme of things tbh. Why would they manf a huge die card, that they’ll be forced to sell for lower margins than a competitors card, and sell very few of them? Especially when they can make smaller, less risky dies that will sell in quantities 10x, 15x, or 20x more than a larger halo part.

Consumers deserve better pricing, yet at the same time often make purchases without any sound reasoning or logic at desired price points outside of halo tier.

Nothing will improve until products rot on the shelves like they should.

 

[JustBenching]

That math just isn't math-ing when you compare it to the 4080 Super, because the 4080 was replaced with the 4080S, and you can't get the 4080 Super because Nvidia conveniently ended 4000 series production before the 50 series launch. You want the a competitor to release a 40% faster gpu but you'll still buy the one 10% faster than the previous gen.

So you are basically arguing that if the 4080S hadn't launched, this would be a better card? This is fundamentally not computing, it's illogical to make such an argument.

The 7800XT,7900XT and 7900XTX were all solid competition while being cheaper, but since you put better in quotes I expect you don't care about the raster performance.

Nobody cares about raster performance anymore, especially not in the high end.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I remember being impressed that they were able to fix it that quickly. Of course, given that the 480 was supposed to come out in late 2009, they probably worked on it for longer than the apparent turnaround time.

Yeah I really liked the GTX 580 it felt so bad ass to own in 2010/11 and was the first DGPU I purchased prior to that I bought prebuilts

Honestly I feel pretty bad for reviewers in 2025 though on 1 hand if someone is buying a new card and has 1000 ish usd this is the best option new on the other hand as a consumer I'm looking at how much this has improved over the 4080s after 12 months and going well that sucks.

On top of that the features are hard to evaluate becuase one person might love FG and another might hate it the same with upscaling.

In the grand scheme of things I'm just bummed that we aren't getting much over what we've had for 2 years now meaning it's going to be another 2 years before we might get a generational improvement over what we had in 2022.

 

[dia6olo]

Not great but bang for buck it does compare favorably against the 4090 at least for the gamers.
At 4K and based on a number of reviews, the 4090 is only outperforming the 5080 by approx 21%.

The 4090 cost 60% more than the 5080 at MSRP.

I'm still not really interested in it as I see the 5070 Ti offering the best bang for buck, I don't see the 5080 outperforming the 5070 Ti by anywhere near the extra 33% MSRP and even then I can see AMD offering a better deal than the 5070 Ti...

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

The 7800XT,7900XT and 7900XTX were all solid competition while being cheaper, but since you put better in quotes I expect you don't care about the raster performance.

Raster is one component of GPU performance. See, you've already introduced the first asterisk, it's "better" (which isnt actually better, the two were effectively tied at launch and more recently the 4080 keeps pulling out wins) but only in raster. Introduce any RT, and it becomes a very one sided argument.

DEPSITE this, the 4080's sales were dissapointing (anyone else remember the stories about the 4080s slow sales?) while the 7900xtx was unobtanium for months after launch.

The 7900xt, you're just plain wrong. It was $900 at launch, remember? The 4070ti was trading blows and was $100 cheaper, and beat its arse in RT. AMD shot themselves in the foot with pricing games.

The 7800xt, like the 7900xtx, was unobtanium for months after launch, it's biggest issue was being 5 months late to the market, which at that point had been saturated with nvidia since AMD just didnt bother launching a competitor when the market was hot. Despite that, the 7800xt sold REALLY well. Again, with that same asterisk that you only care about raster.

In regular performance, the entire RX 7000 series? AMD undercut Nvidia by ~$50-100 at every tier, sometimes more. 7900 XTX vs 4080/4080S, 7900 XT vs 4070-Ti, 7800 XT vs 4070. The most egregious one was the 7900 GRE having significantly better performance than the 4070 Super and being $50 less. But you can just look at the Steam Hardware survey and see how much the price/performance matters when you're always 2 years late offering features with worse quality.

You nailed it right there. AMD isnt playing on a level field, they are playing on one field (raster) while lagging behind everything else, and wondering why being slightly cheaper isnt moving units like it used to.

The 7900xt was $100 more then the 4070ti, imediately DOA, and the 7800xt (the best selling 7000 series card) launched 5 months after the 4070 did.

 

[Visible Noise]

All i'll say is, I hope the cost of adding RT and Tensor cores for the RT/Path Tracing lovers out there was worth it. Nvidia are certainly milking you for all it's worth.

It very much is. Did you read the review?

 

[RGAFL]

Nobody cares about raster performance anymore, especially not in the high end.

I do, i'm a games programmer, games don't work without it. How else would I get characters and models, textures and materials without it? RT is good for the lighting and reflections, the rest, not so much.

 

[Visible Noise]

even at that price it's overpriced, $850 max

Twice as fast as the $820 7900 XTX and you you think it's overpriced. LOL

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I do, i'm a games programmer, games don't work without it. How else would I get characters and models, textures and materials without it?

And in pure raster, today's GPUs are absolute overkill, so long as you dont shove 2 million vertices into a single character model or shove 70k polygons into the bristles of a tooth brush, or other dumb resource wasting garbage we see today.

We've hit peak raster, frankly. Newer visual improvements via raster are commanding orders of magnitude more processing power with no observable benefit. Lighting, shading, draw distance, ece are the most obvious improvements moving forwards and that is ostensibly what RT is for.

 

[Visible Noise]

I do, i'm a games programmer, games don't work without it. How else would I get characters and models, textures and materials without it?

If you really are a game(s) programmer then you know we've reached the end of 3D rasterization. Everyone - Nvidia, AMD, Sony, Microsoft, Epic etc.. has told you this.

MSI confirmed the supply of 5080 and 5090 dies are being limited by Nvidia, so Nvidia has to be making an absolute killing.

You're lying again.

 

[JustBenching]

I do, i'm a games programmer, games don't work without it. How else would I get characters and models, textures and materials without it?

I'm sure you can make it work with the raster performance of a 4080 or a 4090. You don't need more than that. We need gpus that are faster in RT now.

 

[Hecate91]

Doesn’t make any sense in the grand scheme of things tbh. Why would they manf a huge die card, that they’ll be forced to sell for lower margins than a competitors card, and sell very few of them? Especially when they can make smaller, less risky dies that will sell in quantities 10x, 15x, or 20x more than a larger halo part.

Consumers deserve better pricing, yet at the same time often make purchases without any sound reasoning or logic at desired price points outside of halo tier.

Nothing will improve until products rot on the shelves like they should.

Exactly, even if AMD could've made something like a 7990XTX, it would've made no sense for them despite having a faster card.
IMO the mid range market needs a lot more attention than the high end, influencers and reviewers always promote the high end however it isn't within the budget of most consumers.
And I don't see anything changing as long as reviewers will still praise cards like this 5080 only being a 10% improvement over the 4080 Super.

So you are basically arguing that if the 4080S hadn't launched, this would be a better card? This is fundamentally not computing, it's illogical to make such an argument.

It makes no sense to compare the 5080 to the 4080, its a card that got replaced by the Super version, its illogical to compare it to a card that has long been replaced.

Nobody cares about raster performance anymore, especially not in the high end.

You don't care, but that doesn't mean the average gamer doesn't. RT and upscaling isn't a requirement to enjoy a game no matter how much reviewers say how necessary it is.

Better than anything AMD will produce in the next 2-4 years.

And comments like this is why nothing will improve because you'll buy whatever Jensen sells, your user name is fitting.

 

[Visible Noise]

et's just hope AMD don't get greedy (again) and decide that FSR4 = DLSS4 and 4080-like performance justifies a 4080-like price tag.

This is false hope. When was the last time AMD didn't screw up their pricing?

And comments like this is why nothing will improve because you'll buy whatever Jensen sells, your user name is fitting.

Not Nvidia's fault that AMD can't compete. BTW, thanks for feeding my ignor(ant) list.

 

[wait_wot]

well that's a disappointment. i think i might even wait for the 5070ti and upgrade with a 7000 or something in 3 years

 

[AtiAmd]

alright, i'll feed the troll. what would you recommend to me if i had $800 to $1200 to spend?

Blimley, mate, im honoured. Well, i defo would not spend that much on gpu especially 5080...but if i could afford it i would save and get 5090, coz that is what nvidia is doing now - keeping poor on breed and water and only few can experience "4k cake".

Just because there is a overvalued product from a company who got no real competition does not mean it should be recommended. You ,the guys "upstairs" are the real voice who shape peoples opinions. Our troll comments won't go high enough and this sweet political jargon is no good...it is a overpriced product....mayby not necessarily bad but defo overpriced and wrongly named.


Please, don't put recommend badge in your 5060 "8gb" review.

 

[JustBenching]

You don't care, but that doesn't mean the average gamer doesn't. RT and upscaling isn't a requirement to enjoy a game no matter how much reviewers say how necessary it is.

Stop this BS with the "reviewers" promoting nvidia. Seriously, it's pretty hard trying to have a conversation with you when you keep spitting that. Imagine if I freaking did that every damn post. Ok, let me give it a spin just in case it makes you realize how silly I'd look

"The average gamer cares about RT and upscaling, raster isn't a requirement to enjoy a game no matter how much reviewers say how necessary it is. See reviewers and influencers are always trying to promote AMD, don't fall for it".

You get it now, right? I sound silly, yes?

And to address your point, you don't need a high end GPU to enjoy games either. So why are you here, commenting on a 1k$ card? You can enjoy your games on a 200$ gpu from 2020. I assume you are here, on a 1k$ GPU, cause you care about graphics. Therefore RT.

 

[JohH]

The 5090 was impressive but also not.
The 5080 is simply unimpressive.