2080 Ti Vs 3060 12gb
RTX 2080 Ti vs RTX 3060 Ti
Price now 845$
Games supported 100%
Cost now 540$
Games supported 100%
General info
Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
| Identify in operation rating | fourteen | 18 |
| Value for money | 39.28 | 61.81 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | Ampere (2020−2022) |
| GPU lawmaking name | Turing TU102 | Ampere GA104 |
| Marketplace segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release appointment | 27 August 2018 (three years agone) | ane December 2020 (1 year ago) |
| Launch cost (MSRP) | $999 | $399 |
| Toll now | $845 (0.8x MSRP) | $540 (1.4x MSRP) |
Value for money
To get the index we compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU cadre base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, merely for precise cess you accept to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Notation that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4352 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1350 MHz | no data |
| Heave clock speed | 1545 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 18,600 million | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing procedure technology | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 270 Watt | no information |
| Texture fill rate | 420.2 | 253.ane |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Data on compatibility with other calculator components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and passenger vehicle (motherboard compatibility), additional ability connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 242 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no data |
Memory
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Annotation that GPUs integrated into processors take no dedicated VRAM and use a shared role of organization RAM.
| Retentivity type | GDDR6 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | eleven GB | no data |
| Memory jitney width | 352 Fleck | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 616.0 GB/southward | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. Every bit a rule, data in this section is precise simply for desktop reference ones (so-chosen 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, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| K-SYNC support | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information volition prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
API back up
APIs supported, including detail versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | no information |
| Shader Model | half-dozen.five | six.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | ii.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | ane.2.131 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | vii.5 | eight.6 |
Criterion performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall criterion performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined criterion performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you notice some perceived inconsistencies, feel gratuitous to speak up in comments section, nosotros usually prepare bug quickly.
- Passmark
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Deject Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Burn Strike Graphics
- GeekBench 5 OpenCL
- GeekBench 5 Vulkan
- GeekBench 5 CUDA
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various load, providing 4 separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, xi and 12 (the terminal beingness done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Criterion coverage: 25%
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark past Futuremark. Information technology used four tests based on two scenes, 1 being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken transport, the other is an abased temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level ten benchmark that was used for abode PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird infinite teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Merely like Ice Storm criterion, information technology has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Criterion coverage: 13%
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features ii separate tests displaying a fight betwixt a humanoid and a peppery creature seemingly fabricated of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Burn down Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics menu benchmark combined from eleven different examination scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU'south processing ability, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Grouping.
Criterion coverage: 9%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card criterion combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on directly usage of GPU'south processing ability, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU'due south processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Criterion coverage: 5%
Gaming performance
Let's see how proficient the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Item gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across unlike resolutions:
| Total Hd | 165 | 144 |
| 1440p | 121 | 92 |
| 4K | 90 | 60 |
Full Hd
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 78 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin'south Creed Odyssey | 125 +3.3% | 121 −3.3% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 107 +12.six% | 95 −12.6% |
| Battleground five | 170 +17.2% | 145 −17.2% |
| Phone call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 70−75 +7.4% | 65−lxx −7.four% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | lxx−75 −6.8% | 78 +6.eight% |
| Far Cry five | 136 −13.2% | 154 +13.2% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 110 −0.9% | 111 +0.9% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 182 −nine.nine% | 200 +ix.9% |
| Hitman 3 | 171 +151% | 65−70 −151% |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 146 +v% | 139 −five% |
| Cherry-red Dead Redemption 2 | 119 −29.4% | 154 +29.4% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 144 −ix% | 157 +9% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 111 −9.9% | 122 +9.9% |
Full Hard disk drive
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 108 +3.8% | 104 −3.8% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 91 +12.iii% | 81 −12.3% |
| Battlefield 5 | 164 +32.iii% | 124 −32.iii% |
| Call of Duty: Mod Warfare | 81 +19.i% | 65−seventy −19.1% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 −6.eight% | 78 +6.viii% |
| Far Cry five | 130 −12.3% | 146 +12.3% |
| Far Weep New Dawn | 106 −1.nine% | 108 +one.9% |
| Forza Horizon four | 181 −8.3% | 196 +eight.3% |
| Hitman 3 | 163 +140% | 65−seventy −140% |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 124 +6.9% | 116 −6.9% |
| Metro Exodus | 107 −two.8% | 110 +2.viii% |
| Cerise Dead Redemption 2 | 90 +1.1% | 89 −i.one% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 139 −seven.2% | 149 +7.two% |
| The Witcher three: Wild Hunt | 247 +13.iii% | 218 −thirteen.3% |
| Spotter Dogs: Legion | 99 −10.1% | 109 +10.one% |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 82 +ix.3% | 75 −ix.3% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 80 +8.1% | 74 −8.i% |
| Battlefield v | 159 +39.v% | 114 −39.v% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 −v.v% | 77 +5.five% |
| Far Cry 5 | 122 −12.3% | 137 +12.three% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 96 −three.1% | 99 +3.1% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 168 −3% | 173 +three% |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 135 +23.9% | 109 −23.ix% |
| Sentry Dogs: Legion | 90 +16.9% | 77 −16.9% |
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 127 +86.8% | 65−70 −86.viii% |
| Hitman 3 | 147 +116% | 65−70 −116% |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 94 +ii.2% | 92 −2.2% |
| Metro Exodus | 76 +fifteen.2% | 66 −xv.2% |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 63 +ten.5% | 57 −10.5% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 110 +6.8% | 103 −half-dozen.8% |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin'southward Creed Odyssey | 72 +x.8% | 65 −ten.8% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 67 +11.seven% | 60 −xi.vii% |
| Battleground 5 | 134 +36.7% | 98 −36.7% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 +forty.4% | 52 −40.4% |
| Far Cry 5 | 117 +6.4% | 110 −6.4% |
| Far Weep New Dawn | 98 +4.3% | 94 −4.3% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147 −2% | 150 +2% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 73 +23.7% | 59 −23.seven% |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 77 +13.2% | 65−70 −13.two% |
| Hitman iii | 85 +25% | 65−70 −25% |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 54 +1.ix% | 53 −1.9% |
| Metro Exodus | 51 +xviii.half dozen% | 43 −18.half dozen% |
| Scarlet Dead Redemption two | 42 +x.five% | 38 −10.five% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 61 +eight.9% | 56 −viii.nine% |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98 +21% | 81 −21% |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassinator'due south Creed Odyssey | 50 +11.ane% | 45 −xi.one% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 46 +15% | 40 −15% |
| Battlefield 5 | 86 +32.iii% | 65 −32.iii% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 +192% | 25 −192% |
| Far Weep 5 | 78 +20% | 65 −20% |
| Far Weep New Dawn | 77 +18.five% | 65 −18.5% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107 +3.ix% | 103 −three.nine% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 44 +33.3% | 33 −33.3% |
Advantages and disadvantages
| Functioning rating | 73.23 | 68.29 |
| Novelty | 27 Baronial 2018 | 1 December 2020 |
| Cost | $999 | $399 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | eight nm |
Technical City couldn't decide betwixt
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
and
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
The differences in performance seem likewise pocket-size.
Should you all the same accept questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, inquire them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Cast your vote
Exercise you lot recollect we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote past clicking "Like" push button near your favorite graphics card.
Competitors of GeForce RTX 2080 Ti by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce RTX 2080 Ti from AMD is Radeon RX 6800, which is slower by 5% and lower by 3 positions in our rating.
Hither are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce RTX 2080 Ti:
Competitors of GeForce RTX 3060 Ti past AMD
The nearest GeForce RTX 3060 Ti'due south AMD equivalent is Radeon RX 6800, which is faster by two% and higher by 1 position in our rating.
Hither are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce RTX 3060 Ti:
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
User rating
Here you tin can see the user rating of the graphics cards, besides equally rate them yourself.
Rate NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:
Rate NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti on a calibration of 1 to v:
Questions and comments
Hither you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.
Graphics settings
Screen resolution
FPS
Source: https://technical.city/en/video/GeForce-RTX-2080-Ti-vs-GeForce-RTX-3060-Ti
0 Response to "2080 Ti Vs 3060 12gb"
Post a Comment