OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,220VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):320 W

Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC
8.2/10

Overall score

Score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 78% of models
Score components

40%

9.1

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

7.8

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 78% of graphics cards
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

8.2

Overall score

30%

4.1

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
9.1

Technical score

Technical score
9.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 88% of models
Score components

44%

9.7

Performance

24%

9.0

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

5.1

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

â–²Better than 88%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • gainward-geforce-rtx-4080-glare-soc
gainward-geforce-rtx-4080-glare-soc
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,220
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC

Based on 204 owners sharing their experience in online comments

72%positive7%mixed21%negative

Owners love the big performance gains, smooth high-resolution gaming, and efficiency; the steep price is the main frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say the card costs too much for the performance, with street prices often around $1,000 to $1,800 depending on region and model.17
  • Owners say the RTX 4090 is only a modest price step up for much more performance, so some wish they had paid for the 4090 instead.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC

Technical score
Technical score
9.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 88% of models
Score components:

44%

9.7

Performance

24%

9.0

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

5.1

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

9.1
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

8.2

Overall score

30%

4.1

Price

6.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
28,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 28,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 86.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
22,000 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 22,000 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 89.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
34,460 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 34,460 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 86.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
20,494 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 20,494 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 83.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
51.07 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 51.07 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 84.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
16 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 16 GB of VRAM, which is more than 62% of graphics cards and equal to 28.1% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6X
This graphics card uses GDDR6X memory, which is newer than on 57.1% of graphics cards and equal to 22.4% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
716.8 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 716.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 75.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
22,400 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 22,400 MHz, which is faster than that of 73.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
320 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 320 W, which is higher than that of 79.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
320 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 320 W under peak load, which is higher than 76.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
700 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 700 W PSU, which is higher than that of 60.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
320 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 320 W, which is higher than that of 75.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
320 W
Show more
Size
329x 130x 61 mm
Length
337 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 337 mm long, which is longer than 90.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1% of graphics cards.
Height
155 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 155 mm tall, which is taller than 98.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Slot width
3 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 3 slot/s, which is wider than 70.7% of graphics cards and equal in width to 16.8% of graphics cards.
Weight
?
Show more

Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 36 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (76 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    76 vs 40
  • 36 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (76 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    76 vs 40
  • 4.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,625 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,625 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 2.06x higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (779.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    779.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 48 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (112 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    112 vs 64
  • 120 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (304 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    304 vs 184
  • 60% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (716.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    716.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 78.1% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (287.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    287.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 36 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (76 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    76 vs 40
  • 36 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (76 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    76 vs 40
  • 4.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,625 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,625 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 2.06x higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (779.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    779.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 48 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (112 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    112 vs 64
  • 120 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (304 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    304 vs 184
  • 78.1% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (287.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    287.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 2.26x higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (51.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    51.07 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 160 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (304 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    304 vs 144
  • 2.4x higher ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a higher ray tracing score than the average graphics card (22,000 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    22,000 points vs 9,148 points
  • 92.8% higher gaming score
    This graphics card has a higher gaming score than the average graphics card (28,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    28,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 52.2% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (34,460 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    34,460 points vs 22,638 points
  • 14.8% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,205 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,205 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 3.22x higher INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a higher INT8 performance than the average graphics card (780 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    780 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 5,376 more FP32 units
    This graphics card has more FP32 units than the average graphics card (9,728 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    9,728 vs 4,352
  • 60% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (716.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    716.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (64 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    64 MB vs 24 MB
  • 17.9% faster memory speed
    This graphics card has a higher effective memory speed than the average graphics card (22,400 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    22,400 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 16x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (64 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    64 MB vs 4 MB
  • 2x more transistors
    This graphics card has more transistors than the average graphics card (45,900 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    45,900 million vs 22,900 million
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 48.8% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (320 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    320 W vs 215 W
  • 30 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (155 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    155 mm vs 125 mm
  • 54.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (337 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    337 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2.35x more expensive
    Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,220 vs £520).
    £1,220 vs £520
  • 45.5% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (320 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    320 W vs 220 W
  • 20% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,400 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,400 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 2.35x more expensive
    Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,220 vs £520).
    £1,220 vs £520
  • 6.8% worse value for money
    Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.94 vs 7.4).
    6.94 vs 7.41
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    November 2022
    2022 vs 2023
  • 20% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,400 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,400 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 28.9% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (379 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    379 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (5 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    5 vs 6
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 48.8% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (320 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    320 W vs 215 W
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 45.5% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (320 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    320 W vs 220 W
  • 7.7% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (700 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    700 W vs 650 W
  • 45.5% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (320 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    320 W vs 220 W
  • 30 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (155 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    155 mm vs 125 mm
  • 54.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (337 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    337 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC

  • Exceptional 4K gaming performance with high frame rates
  • Highly efficient cooling system that maintains low GPU and memory temperatures
  • Excellent energy efficiency compared to previous generations and the RTX 4090
  • Support for DLSS 3 Frame Generation, significantly boosting FPS in compatible titles
  • Quiet operation with an 'idle fan-stop' feature for low-load tasks
  • Solid build quality featuring a metal backplate and ultra-dense protection plate
  • Dual-BIOS support (Silent/Performance modes) for user customization

What customers don't like about Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC

  • High MSRP makes it poor value compared to the original RTX 3080 launch price
  • Positioning is awkward; users often suggest spending slightly more for a vastly more powerful RTX 4090
  • Massive physical size (triple-slot, over a foot long) requires a very large chassis
  • Occasional reports of coil whine/buzzing when frame rates exceed 120 FPS
  • Uses the controversial 16-pin 12VHPWR power connector, which may require an adapter

Verdict

The Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare OC is a high-performance graphics card built on the NVIDIA Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 9,728 CUDA cores and 16GB of GDDR6X VRAM on a 256-bit memory bus. It offers a factory-overclocked boost clock of 2,565 MHz and an effective memory speed of 22.4 Gbps, delivering approximately 49.9 TFLOPS of raw processing power. Main characteristics include support for DLSS 3 frame generation, third-generation Ray Tracing cores, and a robust triple-slot cooling system with a 320W TDP. Key pros are its exceptional 4K gaming performance, superior energy efficiency compared to previous flagship models, and quiet operation under load. However, notable cons include its massive physical dimensions (362 mm length), high launch pricing, and potential fitting issues in smaller chassis.

Compare Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Glare SOC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found