Winner
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
GPUBoss recommends the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 based on its .
See full details Radeon RX Vega 56 vs GeForce GTX 1080 |
Released August, 2017
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
- 1.2 GHz
- 8 GB
8.5 Out of 10
by www.tweaktown.com (Aug, 2017)AMD is offering up a huge 10.5 TFLOPs of performance and mixed with 1080p/1440p 60FPS+ gaming with cheaper FreeSync displays, or one of the new Radeon Packs.
VS
Released May, 2016
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080
- 1.6 GHz
- 8 GB GDDR5
8.7 Out of 10
by www.tweaktown.com (Jul, 2016)Performance (overclocking, power)100%Quality (build, design, cooling)95%General Features (display outputs, etc)95%Bundle, Packaging & Software95%Value for Money95% Overall TweakTown Rating96% The Bottom Line: It's simple: ZOTAC has the fastest GeForce GTX 1080 on the market right now with its GeForce GTX 1080 AMP!
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of RX Vega 56 vs 1080 among all GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 8.7 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Significantly higher memory bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | vs | 224.4 GB/s | Around 85% higher memory bandwidth | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better floating-point performance | 10,544 GFLOPS | vs | 8,228 GFLOPS | Around 30% better floating-point performance | |||
| Much wider memory bus | 2,048 bit | vs | 256 bit | 8x wider memory bus | |||
| Higher texture rate | 329.5 GTexel/s | vs | 257.1 GTexel/s | Around 30% higher texture rate | |||
| More shading units | 3,584 | vs | 2,560 | 1024 more shading units | |||
| More texture mapping units | 224 | vs | 160 | 64 more texture mapping units | |||
| |||||||
| Much higher effective memory clock speed | 10,008 MHz | vs | 1,600 MHz | More than 6.2x higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 1,607 MHz | vs | 1,156 MHz | Around 40% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 1,733 MHz | vs | 1,471 MHz | Around 20% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher memory clock speed | 1,251 MHz | vs | 800 MHz | More than 55% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Slightly higher pixel rate | 102.8 GPixel/s | vs | 94.14 GPixel/s | Around 10% higher pixel rate | |||
| Better ocean surface simulation score | 2,049.56 frames/s | vs | 1,769.36 frames/s | More than 15% better ocean surface simulation score | |||
| Lower TDP | 180W | vs | 210W | Around 15% lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
