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

KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£650VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):215 W

KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080
7.2/10

Overall score

Score
7.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components

40%

6.4

Technical score

25%

8.4

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

6.4

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 59% of graphics cards
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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 68% of models
Score components

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

7.1

Price

â–¼Worse than 68%
6.4

Technical score

Technical score
6.4/ 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–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

44%

5.5

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

8.7

Features

5%

7.8

Design

4%

8.6

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 62%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 10
✕
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
â–² Better than 85% of models

80%

8.4

Average grade

20%

8.1

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 85%
?

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
  • kfa2-geforce-rtx-2080
kfa2-geforce-rtx-2080
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080

Based on 4 · 1

Reviewers praise its efficiency, looks and overclocking, but find the card bulky and heavy.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080

Based on 216 owners sharing their experience in online comments

58%positive15%mixed27%negative

Owners praise fast, smooth gaming and strong overclocking, while heat and uneven performance cause the most frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report the card running at 80–85°C or higher in gaming, with fans getting loud and clocks dropping when temperatures peak.31
  • Owners say some demanding games, especially with ray tracing on, run well below expected frame rates at 1080p and 1440p.24
  • Owners report crashes, freezes, screen artifacts and black screens, with some cards needing replacement or RMA.18
  • Owners say memory overclocks are limited, and some cards freeze or become unstable above about +900 to +1000 MHz.6
  • Owners say performance gets choppier or drops over time, even though the card ran well when new.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080

Technical score
Technical score
6.4/ 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–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

44%

5.5

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

8.7

Features

5%

7.8

Design

4%

8.6

Connectivity

6.4
Reviews score
8.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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 68% of models
Score components:

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

7.1

Price

7.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
10,659 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 10,659 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 67.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
6,260 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 6,260 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 63.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
19,572 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 19,572 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 62.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
7,807 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 7,807 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 71.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
10.07 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 10.07 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 73.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% 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
448 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 448 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 41.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
14,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 14,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 69.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% 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
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% 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)
215 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 215 W, which is lower than that of 49.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
215 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 215 W under peak load, which is lower than 51.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
650 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 650 W PSU, which is lower than that of 39.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.9% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
258 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 258 W, which is higher than that of 60.7% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
215 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
285x 127x 52 mm
Length
283 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 283 mm long, which is longer than 50.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
139 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 139 mm tall, which is taller than 78.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,092 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,092 g, which is heavier than 54.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 224 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (368 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    368 vs 144
  • 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
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–² Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 7 °C higher thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a higher thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (88 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    88 °C vs 95 °C
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–² Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 224 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (368 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    368 vs 144
  • 6 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (46 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    46 vs 40
  • 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
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • 7 °C higher thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a higher thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (88 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    88 °C vs 95 °C
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 28.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,785 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,785 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 21.1% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,515 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,515 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 32.2% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (109.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    109.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 17.9% lower sentiment score
    6.4 vs 7.8
  • 25% more expensive
    KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 is more expensive than the average graphics card (£650 vs £520).
    £650 vs £520
  • 3.6% worse value for money
    KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.16 vs 7.4).
    7.16 vs 7.41
  • 28.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,785 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,785 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 21.1% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,515 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,515 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 32.2% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (109.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    109.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 55.4% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (10.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    10.07 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 5 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2018 vs 2023).
    September 2018
    2018 vs 2023
  • 16.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (314.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    314.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 27.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (10,659 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    10,659 points vs 14,779 points
  • 13.5% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (19,572 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    19,572 points vs 22,638 points
  • 31.6% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (6,260 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    6,260 points vs 9,148 points
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • 85.4% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (545 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    545 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 17.3% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (258 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    258 W vs 220 W
  • 7 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (74 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    74 °C vs 67 °C
  • 41.7% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (17 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    17 W vs 12 W
  • 14 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (139 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    139 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Gamezoom.net
≈ estimated
20/10/2018
Hands-on review · 4K gaming, temperature and design
Verdict
KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 is a clear recommendation, offering a very good balance of performance, noise, overclocking headroom and lighting.
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
pcmasters.de
≈ estimated
Not Dated
Benchmark test · Ray tracing and DLSS
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 EX is a strong ray tracing card, keeping Battlefield V playable, though DLSS only worked in Final Fantasy XV during testing.
9.0
hwmz.de
≈ estimated
13/06/2019
Benchmark test · Quiet RTX 2080
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 EX (1-Click OC) is a quiet, efficient RTX 2080 with easy one-click overclocking, but its three-slot size is bulky.
9.0
elchapuzasinformatico.com
≈ estimated
25/01/2019
Benchmark test · Dual-fan RTX 2080
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 EX is a quiet, cool card with GTX 1080 Ti-class synthetic results, but its lower clocks sit slightly behind Nvidia's Founders Edition.
8.0
techintest.it
≈ estimated
21/08/2019
Product review · Overclocked RTX 2080
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 EX (1-Click OC) is a well-built RTX 2080 with a one-click overclock to 1755 MHz, though its bundle is very bare.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080

  • Solid 1440p gaming performance even in modern titles with setting adjustments
  • KFA2 build quality is generally considered solid and competent
  • Effective cooling solutions that typically maintain acceptable temperatures under load
  • Support for DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) which helps maintain higher frame rates
  • Competitive value for money compared to other premium board partners
  • Good overclocking potential on specific high-end models like the Hall of Fame (HOF) series

What customers don't like about KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080

  • High initial launch price that many users felt did not offer enough performance over previous generations
  • Struggles with 4K gaming in demanding modern titles or when Ray Tracing is maxed out
  • Limited second-hand warranty compared to some other major GPU brands
  • High power consumption, especially on overclocked or 'Super' variants
  • Larger physical footprints (some models require 3 slots) may lead to clearance issues in smaller cases

Verdict

The KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 is an enthusiast-grade graphics card built on NVIDIA's 12nm Turing architecture, featuring 2,944 CUDA cores, 46 Ray Tracing cores, and 368 Tensor cores for AI-driven tasks like DLSS. It is equipped with 8GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit interface, delivering a bandwidth of 448 GB/s with a base clock of 1,515 MHz and a boost reaching up to 1,845 MHz on overclocked models. Main pros include its high 1440p gaming performance, efficient dual-fan cooling system with RGB lighting, and hardware support for real-time ray tracing. However, some variants can be quite loud under full load, it lacks a USB Type-C port on certain editions, and its 8GB of VRAM is becoming a limiting factor for the most modern AAA titles at ultra settings.

Compare KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 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 KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found