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

MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£980VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):320 W

MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim
8.6/10

Overall score

Score
8.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

40%

9.1

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

9.6

Sentiment score

★Better than 99% of graphics cards
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components

70%

8.6

Overall score

30%

5.3

Price

▲Better than 62%
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 91% of models
Score components

44%

9.8

Performance

24%

9.0

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

5.8

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

★Better than 91%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 77% of models

80%

8.4

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
1 review, with a printed score. 3 video reviews, each 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.
▲Better than 77%
?

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
  • msi-geforce-rtx-4080-super-gaming-slim
msi-geforce-rtx-4080-super-gaming-slim
Where to buy
    N/A~ £980
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 MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim

Based on 1 · 3

Reviewers mostly like its slim, compact size, though a few aren't fully convinced it's small enough.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim

Based on 200 owners sharing their experience in online comments

82%positive9%mixed9%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming and ray-tracing speed, while demanding ray tracing and limited VRAM cause the most frustration.

What owners dislike

  • With path tracing or heavy ray tracing on, frame rates often fall to 30 to 60 fps at 4K, and sometimes into the 20s even at 1080p.6
  • The 16GB of memory runs out in some demanding games at 4K when DLSS Balanced or frame generation is on, causing frame rates to crash.5
  • Owners moving from an RTX 4070 Super often find the gain modest, and an RTX 5080 offers only about 10 percent more frames.4
  • Some owners say driver or game updates broke ray tracing, and a few say secure boot or DLSS caused stutter and large frame-rate drops.3
  • Frame generation can make the game feel laggy, with responsiveness like about 40 to 45 fps, and in some games it sharply lowers frame rates.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim

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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 91% of models
Score components:

44%

9.8

Performance

24%

9.0

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

5.8

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

9.1
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

8.6

Overall score

30%

5.3

Price

7.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
28,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 28,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 2% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
28,485 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 28,485 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 96.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
34,260 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 34,260 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 85.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
19,684 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 19,684 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 79% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
52.22 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 52.22 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 85.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% 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
736.3 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 736.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 78.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
23,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 23,000 MHz, which is faster than that of 76.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.5% 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
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% 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
850 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 850 W PSU, which is higher than that of 83.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.9% 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
322x 136x 62 mm
Length
322 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 322 mm long, which is longer than 75.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Height
136 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 136 mm tall, which is taller than 72.2% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.3% of graphics cards.
Slot width
3.1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 3.1 slot/s, which is wider than 87.6% of graphics cards and equal in width to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,628 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,628 g, which is heavier than 80.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 40 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (80 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    80 vs 40
  • 40 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (80 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    80 vs 40
  • 2.03x higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (769.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    769.2 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
  • 136 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (320 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    320 vs 184
  • 64.4% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (736.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    736.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 176 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (320 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    320 vs 144
  • 2.31x higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (52.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    52.22 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    1 review, with a printed score. 3 video reviews, each 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.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 23.1% higher sentiment score
    9.6 vs 7.8
  • 40 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (80 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    80 vs 40
  • 40 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (80 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    80 vs 40
  • 2.03x higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (769.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    769.2 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
  • 136 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (320 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    320 vs 184
  • 176 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (320 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    320 vs 144
  • 2.31x higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (52.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    52.22 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 77.1% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (285.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    285.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 19.5% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,295 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,295 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 3.11x higher ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a higher ray tracing score than the average graphics card (28,485 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    28,485 points vs 9,148 points
  • 51.3% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (34,260 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    34,260 points vs 22,638 points
  • 89.5% higher gaming score
    This graphics card has a higher gaming score than the average graphics card (28,000 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    28,000 points vs 14,779 points
  • 1.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,550 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,550 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 3.45x higher INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a higher INT8 performance than the average graphics card (836 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    836 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 5,888 more FP32 units
    This graphics card has more FP32 units than the average graphics card (10,240 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    10,240 vs 4,352
  • 64.4% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (736.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    736.3 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
  • 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
  • 21.1% faster memory speed
    This graphics card has a higher effective memory speed than the average graphics card (23,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    23,000 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
  • 4x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 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
  • 30.8% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (850 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    850 W vs 650 W
  • 0.6 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3.1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3.1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 39.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (322 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    322 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 11 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (136 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    136 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 88.5% more expensive
    MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim is more expensive than the average graphics card (£980 vs £520).
    £980 vs £520
  • 17.8% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,438 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,438 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 30.8% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (850 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    850 W vs 650 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
  • 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
  • 3.1 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (38.5 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    38.5 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 39.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (322 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    322 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.6 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3.1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3.1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 11 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (136 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    136 mm vs 125 mm
  • 60.6% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,628 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,628 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

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

9.0
Funkykit
≈ estimated
05/12/2024
Hands-on review · unboxing and benchmark results
Verdict
MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim suits hardcore gamers who want a compact build, with excellent performance and cooling.
9.0
FIRE WOLF TECH
≈ estimated
10/06/2024
Unboxing and benchmark review · 1440p and 4K performance
Verdict
MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim offers great value for 1440p and good 4K performance, best for buyers who want a smaller, subtler card.
8.0
CasuallyGamin9
≈ estimated
17/02/2024
Long review · overclocking, undervolting and thermal tests
Verdict
MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim is thin, well cooled and solidly built, though undervolting disappointed and the power connector is a concern.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
funkykit.com
✓ explicit
06/12/2024
Product overview · Slim design
Verdict
The MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming X Slim is a slimmer version of the Gaming X line that fits most ATX cases, but it recommends an 850W power supply.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim

  • Excellent 4K and 1440p gaming performance
  • Effective cooling with low operating temperatures (around 62-65°C under load)
  • Quiet operation with minimal fan noise and no significant coil whine
  • Sleek, slim design suitable for cases with space constraints
  • Attractive aesthetic with an all-black design and a subtle RGB-lit logo
  • Includes a dual BIOS for choosing between silent and gaming modes
  • Highly power efficient compared to competitors

What customers don't like about MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim

  • High price point, with some users considering it overpriced for the minor performance gain over the non-Super model
  • Minimal performance uplift (1-3%) compared to the original RTX 4080
  • Lack of RGB lighting on the cooling fans, which may disappoint some users
  • Potentially higher temperatures compared to bulkier models like the ASUS TUF or MSI Suprim series
  • 12VHPWR cable placement can make cable management difficult

Verdict

The MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim is a high-performance 4K graphics card featuring 10,240 CUDA cores, 16GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, and a boost clock reaching up to 2610 MHz. Its primary characteristic is a refined, triple-slot 'Slim' design (322 x 136 x 62 mm) that utilizes the TRI FROZR 3 thermal system with Torx Fan 5.0 for efficient cooling in more compact cases. Main pros include its superior ray-tracing capabilities, 23 Gbps memory speed, and a dual BIOS for choosing between silent and gaming modes. Potential cons include its 320W power consumption requiring at least a 750W–850W PSU and its reliance on the 16-pin 12VHPWR connector, which may require an adapter for older power supplies.

Compare MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim 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 MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Gaming Slim and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found