Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
Native 1080p gaming, whether at medium or ultra settings, really isn't the primary use case for a card like the RTX 4080 Super. Sure, 4K with Performance mode 4X upscaling uses 1080p as the render resolution, so if you're curious about how that would run, these results are at least somewhat useful. But 4X upscaling does require a decent amount of computational work on the GPU, meaning actual 4K with Performance mode upscaling will probably run about 20~30 percent slower than what you'll see here.
Given the price and target audience, we're only going to provide limited commentary on the 1080p results, but they're included for the sake of completeness. CPU bottlenecks are very much a factor here, especially at medium settings.
RTX 4080 Super 1080p Overall Performance
Against the vanilla 4080, the RTX 4080 Super only delivers 2% more performance overall — and that applies to both the medium and ultra results. More telling is that the 4090 only offers 13% more performance at 1080p ultra, and that dips to just 9% at 1080p medium. Similarly, the 4080 Super's lead over the 4070 Ti Super is down to 12% at ultra settings, and just 7% at medium settings.
Interestingly, the matchup against AMD's 7900 XTX doesn't change much. The 4080 Super remains 17% faster overall at ultra settings, and 13% ahead at medium. That's mostly thanks to a big boost for Nvidia for 1080p performance in Horizon Zero Dawn, which is also the oldest game in our test suite.
RTX 4080 Super 1080p Rasterization Performance
Rasterization really doesn't push the 4080 Super hard at all at 1080p, or most other high-end GPUs for that matter. Where the gap between the 4080 Super and 4070 Ti Super was 18% at 4K, it's only 9% at 1080p ultra and 4% at 1080p medium. There are even a few instances where, due to CPU bottlenecks and the need to distribute the workload among more GPU cores, the 4070 Ti and some of the 'slower' Nvidia GPUs end up beating the fastest Nvidia options.
RTX 4080 Super 1080p Ray Tracing Performance
Ray tracing is still demanding, however, even at 1080p. The 4080 Super leads the 4070 Ti Super by 15% overall at ultra settings, and 12% at medium settings. That's a smaller delta than at 1440p and 4K, but it's also quite a bit larger than the gap in our rasterization suite.
That goes for AMD's 7900 XTX as well. The 4080 Super delivers 39% higher performance at 1080p ultra — the same margin as at 1440p. DXR medium isn't quite so bad, with the lead shrinking to 30% overall. That's still pretty sizeable, however, and shows how much ground AMD still needs to make up in the future.
The 4090 lead shrinks at 1080p, even with DXR. It's 19% faster than the 4080 Super at ultra settings, and 15% faster at medium settings. That's with a current retail price that's 80% to 100% higher.
Upscaling at 1080p is still possible, but the quality definitely starts to suffer. Quality mode shows noticeable artifacts, like moiré patterns on certain textures (grilles and other finely lined surfaces being the main example), and there's not much need for upscaling at lower resolutions with high-end hardware.
RTX 4080 Super 1080p Bonus Games
Despite what we just said, we still used Quality mode upscaling in both Alan Wake 2 and Avatar. Medium settings in Alan Wake 2 are far less brutal than full path tracing, so the gap between AMD and Nvidia shrinks a lot: The 4080 Super is 'only' 53% faster at 1080p medium, while it's 139% faster with high settings.
Avatar meanwhile shows a 20% delta between the same AMD and Nvidia GPUs at medium settings, and a 23% delta with ultra settings. The 4080 Super hits some CPU (and possibly DLSS) limitations at 1080p medium, though, with the 4080 Super only leading the 4070 Ti Super by 6%.
And wrapping up our gaming benchmarks, cache and bandwidth requirements change a lot at 1080p in The Last of Us. Now, the 4080 Super beats the 7900 XTX by 5% at ultra quality, and that margin increases to 17% at medium settings.
The RTX 4090, if you're wondering, is basically tied with the 4080 Super in Avatar and The Last of Us at 1080p medium, but has a 26% lead in Alan Wake 2. At ultra settings, it's 8% faster in Avatar, 15% faster in The Last of Us, and 27% faster in AW2.
- MORE: Best Graphics Cards
- MORE: GPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy
- MORE: All Graphics Content
Current page: Nvidia RTX 4080 Super: 1080p Gaming Performance
Prev Page Nvidia RTX 4080 Super: 1440p Gaming Performance Next Page Nvidia RTX 4080 Super: Professional Content Creation and AI PerformanceJarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.
Windows 11 Mixed Reality support revived for Meta Quest 3, Quest 3S headsets
Kickstarter campaign claims its $39 AI-powered PlayStation 5 add-on reduces exhaust temps by up to 9 degrees C
Nvidia, AMD, and Intel all invest in light-based communication networks powering next-gen chips — Ayar Labs gets $155 million in funding
-
Lamarr the Strelok $1000 for 16 GB VRAM. What a ripoff. Personally the 7600 XT with 16 GB VRAM is the only GPU I'd consider.Nvidia has better performance but their greed is incredible.Reply
I'll be using my 8 GB RX 570 til it's wheels fall off. Then I may simply be done with PC gaming. It's becoming ridiculous now. -
usertests
I'm not going to tell you to continue PC gaming but there are plenty of options that are good enough for whatever you're doing, like an RX 6600. If you want more VRAM, grab a 6700 XT instead of 7600 XT, or an RTX 3060, while supplies last. Then if we later see the RX 7600 8GB migrate down to $200, and 7700 XT 12GB down to $350, those will be perfectly fine cards.Lamarr the Strelok said:$1000 for 16 GB VRAM. What a ripoff. Personally the 7600 XT with 16 GB VRAM is the only GPU I'd consider.Nvidia has better performance but their greed is incredible.
I'll be using my 8 GB RX 570 til it's wheels fall off. Then I may simply be done with PC gaming. It's becoming ridiculous now.
By the time you're done hodling your RX 570, the 7600 XT should be under $300 and at least RDNA4 and Blackwell GPUs will be out. -
RandomWan Lamarr the Strelok said:$1000 for 16 GB VRAM. What a ripoff. Personally the 7600 XT with 16 GB VRAM is the only GPU I'd consider.Nvidia has better performance but their greed is incredible.
I'll be using my 8 GB RX 570 til it's wheels fall off. Then I may simply be done with PC gaming. It's becoming ridiculous now.
You're complaining about the VRAM (which doesn't matter as much as you think) and the price when you're sporting a bottom budget card. There's any number of cards you could upgrade to with a $300 budget that will blow that 570 out of the water.
These should be over 2x the performance of your card with 16GB for $330:
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/vT9wrH/xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-7600-xt-16-gb-video-card-rx-76tswftfp
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/sqyH99/gigabyte-gaming-oc-radeon-rx-7600-xt-16-gb-video-card-gv-r76xtgaming-oc-16gd -
Gururu I thought healthy competition between companies meant the customer wins. This proves not the case. They do just enough to edge the competition when they could do soooo much more for the customer.Reply -
TerryLaze
Being cheaper is not a bad thing, it's not contradictory to the first thing being good ( the slightly faster) it's not but cheaper, it's but also or and(also) cheaper.Admin said:Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 Super review: Slightly faster than the 4080, but $200 cheaper : Read more -
InvalidError
If nobody complains about ludicrously expensive GPUs having a bunch of corners cut off everywhere to pinch a few dollars on manufacturing off a $1000 luxury product, that is only an invitation to do even worse next time. No GPU over $250 should have less than 12GB of VRAM, which makes 16GB at $1000 look pathetic.RandomWan said:You're complaining about the VRAM (which doesn't matter as much as you think) and the price when you're sporting a bottom budget card.
Also, having 12+GB does matter as higher resolution textures are usually the most obvious image quality improvement with little to no impact on frame rate as long as you have sufficient VRAM to spare and 8GB is starting to cause lots of visible LoD asset pops in modern titles.
Corporations' highest priority customers are the shareholders and shareholders want infinite 40% YoY growth with the least benefits possible to the retail end-users as giving end-users too much value for their money would mean hitting the end of the road for what can be cost-effectively delivered that much sooner and be able to milk customers for that many fewer product cycles.Gururu said:I thought healthy competition between companies meant the customer wins. This proves not the case. They do just enough to edge the competition when they could do soooo much more for the customer. -
TerryLaze
The last time we had healthy competition in anything computer related was in the 90ies.Gururu said:I thought healthy competition between companies meant the customer wins. This proves not the case. They do just enough to edge the competition when they could do soooo much more for the customer.
AMD buying ATI in 2006 was the last of any "healthy" competition, every other GPU company at that point was already defeated, also every other CPU company other that intel and AMD with ARM, as a company, barely hanging on even though ARM as CPUs are almost everywhere. -
magbarn As long as Nvidia makes a killing on AI, they're going to reserve the fat chips like the 4090 only for the highest priced products. They're allocating most of the large chips to AI, hence why the 4090 at MSRP sold out in minutes yesterday. This 4080 Super really is what the 4070 Ti should've been.Reply -
RandomWan InvalidError said:If nobody complains about ludicrously expensive GPUs having a bunch of corners cut off everywhere to pinch a few dollars on manufacturing off a $1000 luxury product, that is only an invitation to do even worse next time. No GPU over $250 should have less than 12GB of VRAM, which makes 16GB at $1000 look pathetic.
It carries a bit less weight complaing about it when you're rocking what was a sub $200 video card. There's things other than a reasonable price keeping you from the card. By all means complain where appropriate, but unless people stop buying it, your complaints will acheive nothing.
I don't know why you think a budget card should have that much RAM. You're not going to be gaming at resolutions where you can make use of those larger textures. I have a 1080Ti with 11GB (from the same timeframe) and the memory buffer isn't getting maxxed out at 3440x1440. Unless you're actually gaming at 4k or greater resolution, you're likely not running into a VRAM limitation, especially if you're making use of upscaling technologies. -
Lamarr the Strelok Well shadow of tomb raider at 1080p gets close to using 8 GB of VRAM. Far Cry 6 at 1440 uses close to 8 also.Reply
I admit I'm a budget gamer.(I have guitars and guitar amps to feed).But yes, UE 5 is a bit of a pig.Many UE5 games have an rx570,580, 590 as the minimum so the party's over for me soon.