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

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£870VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):180 W

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 57 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components

40%

5.4

Technical score

25%

8.6

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

10

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 59% of graphics cards
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 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
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

5.9

Price

▼Worse than 82%
5.4

Technical score

Technical score
5.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

44%

3.7

Performance

24%

5.3

Memory

12%

7.5

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.3

Connectivity

▼Worse than 79%
8.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.6/ 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 96% of models

80%

8.4

Average grade

20%

9.6

Popularity

Grades by review (57)
30 reviews: 15 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 27 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 96%
?

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
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080
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 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080

Based on 30 · 27

Reviewers agree it's fast and efficient with good outputs, though cooling and noise divide opinion and multi-GPU support disappoints.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080

Technical score
Technical score
5.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

44%

3.7

Performance

24%

5.3

Memory

12%

7.5

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.3

Connectivity

5.4
Reviews score
8.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

5.9

Price

6.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
7,800 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 7,800 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
1,827 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 1,827 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 79.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
15,611 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 15,611 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 74.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
7,624 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 7,624 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 71.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
9 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 9 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 76% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
GDDR5X
This graphics card uses GDDR5X memory, which is older than on 83.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.6% 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
320 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 320 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 66.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
10,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 10,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 83.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
12.1
This graphics card supports DirectX 12.1, which is older than on 77.2% of graphics cards and equal to 4.5% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% 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
What reviewers say
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
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
180 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 180 W, which is lower than that of 57.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
178 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 178 W under peak load, which is lower than 65.4% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
216 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 216 W, which is lower than that of 52.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
180 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
267x 112x 40 mm
Length
267 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 267 mm long, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 3.5% of graphics cards.
Height
111.2 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111.2 mm tall, which is shorter than 80.3% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.7% 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
1,000 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,000 g, which is lighter than 50.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 3.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 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
  • 5.71x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (10,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    10,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 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 96% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    9.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (57)
    30 reviews: 15 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 27 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.
    8.6 vs 7.2
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 13.8 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.2 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 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
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 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 96% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    9.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (57)
    30 reviews: 15 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 27 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.
    8.6 vs 7.2
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 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
  • 5.71x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (10,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    10,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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.
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 16.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (180 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    180 W vs 215 W
  • 13.8 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.2 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 30.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,733 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,733 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 3.2x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (16 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    16 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 20 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    20 vs 40
  • 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
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 9% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.8 vs 7.4).
    6.8 vs 7.41
  • 67.3% more expensive
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is more expensive than the average graphics card (£870 vs £520).
    £870 vs £520
  • 30.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,733 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,733 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 20 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    20 vs 40
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 31.2% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (110.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    110.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 60.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 26.6% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (277.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    277.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    May 2016
    2016 vs 2023
  • 16.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,607 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,607 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 80% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (1,827 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    1,827 points vs 9,148 points
  • 47.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (7,800 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    7,800 points vs 14,779 points
  • 31% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (15,611 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    15,611 points vs 22,638 points
  • 24 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (160 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    160 vs 184
  • 99.5% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.14 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 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
  • 47.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (10,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    10,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 28.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (320 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    320 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • 3.2x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (16 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    16 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12.1 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12.1 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 68.6% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (7,200 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    7,200 million vs 22,900 million
  • 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.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 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
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (3 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    3 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
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 15 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (82 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    82 °C vs 67 °C
  • 27 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (27 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    27 dB vs 0 dB
  • 6.2 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (41.6 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    41.6 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

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

8.0
Josh Fox Tech
≈ estimated
31/07/2025
Benchmark review · GTX 1080 game tests at 1080p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is still a capable card for 1080p gaming in 2025, though some demanding titles struggle.
6.0
ProYamYamPC
≈ estimated
31/08/2024
Budget 4K test · game benchmarks with and without FSR
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is too old for 4K gaming; it suits 1080p and 1440p instead.
7.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
23/06/2024
Multi-game test · 20 titles and value verdict
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is a decent buy only if you find one cheap, though its efficiency lags behind newer cards.
8.0
Extreme Graphics Tech
≈ estimated
27/04/2024
Retest · six newer games on the reviewer's own card
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is still quite good at 1080p, but its value depends on local prices and realistic frame rate expectations.
7.0
Joker Productions
≈ estimated
26/07/2018
Benchmark review · ten modern games at three resolutions
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is still excellent at 1440p, but most buyers should wait for the next generation.
9.0
PC Perspective
≈ estimated
17/05/2016
Hands-on review · performance, build and pricing
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is a great card and well built, but wait for cheaper partner cards instead of the Founders Edition.
9.5
Digital Foundry
≈ estimated
17/05/2016
Launch review · benchmarks at 1080p, 1440p and 4K
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 was the fastest single GPU at launch, an excellent design for buyers who can afford it.
9.0
Bitwit
≈ estimated
17/05/2016
Benchmark review · games at HD, Quad HD and 4K
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 offers serious performance for the price and is the fastest single GPU, though 4K at max settings is tough.
9.5
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
17/05/2016
Full review · benchmarks, power, thermals and value
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is an easy buy at its price for 4K 60 FPS gaming, though it still falls short at max settings.
9.5
Hardware Canucks
≈ estimated
17/05/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and temperatures
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is an excellent card and good value, with a large performance leap over high-end Maxwell.
9.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
17/05/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks, thermals and overclocking
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 offers strong performance and is the card to buy over rivals, though its price is high and waiting may pay off.
9.0
arke12917
≈ estimated
01/06/2016
Unboxing and first install · Assassin's Creed Syndicate test run
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 delivered impressive first results in a demanding game, though early frame rates and tearing were rough.
More graded video reviews (1)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.5
pcgamer.com
✓ explicit
17/05/2016
Early review · Overclocking tests
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1080 is the fastest single GPU, handling 4K at nearly maxed quality, though early drivers and beta overclocking software still need work.
9.5
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
17/05/2016
Benchmark review · Frame timing
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1080 has the most consistent frame pacing in these tests, near 60fps at 4K in DOOM, though Vulkan runs slower than DirectX 11 in one game.
9.0
hardwarecanucks.com
✓ explicit
17/05/2016
Launch review · Overclocking limits
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1080 is about 68% faster than the GTX 980 at 1440p, and suits small, cramped cases with its blower cooler, but power limits cap overclocks.
10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
17/05/2016
Launch review · Reference card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1080 is a big speed jump over the GTX 980, but at launch only this reference-style card was available, with partner designs still to come.
9.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
27/05/2016
Hands-on review · 4K and VR
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1080 is the most powerful consumer card tested and a strong pick for 4K, though it falls short of 60fps in demanding 4K benchmarks.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
01/06/2016
Launch review · Design and cooling
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1080 is the top single-GPU card, making 4K gaming viable, though it runs warm and partner cards will likely be better equipped.
9.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
17/05/2016
Launch review · Founders Edition
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1080 is a fast, efficient flagship that needs only one eight-pin power connector, but three-way and four-way SLI now needs an Enthusiast Key.
9.0
digitalfoundry.net
≈ estimated
07/07/2018
Benchmark review · 1080p to 4K
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1080 is the fastest single card tested, strong at 1080p and 1440p while drawing 180 W, though 4K dips below 30fps in a few games.
8.0
arstechnica.com
≈ estimated
17/05/2016
Launch review · Fastest graphics card
Verdict
The Nvidia GTX 1080 is the fastest graphics card at launch, up to 35% quicker than the GTX 980 Ti, though its speed gain is no bigger than past generations.
9.0
gamesindustry.biz
≈ estimated
09/06/2016
Deep dive · Pascal features
Verdict
The Nvidia GTX 1080 handles 4K well, running GTA V at 70fps where the GTX 980 managed 44fps, though DirectX 12 gains have mostly helped AMD cards.
9.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
17/05/2016
Benchmark round-up · Newer game tests
Verdict
The Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 runs newer games like Apex Legends well at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K averages drop to between 28fps and 49fps.
forbes.com
17/05/2016
Not graded yet
forbes.com
17/05/2016
Not graded yet
tweaktown.com
17/05/2016
Not graded yet
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
17/05/2016
Review · Architecture and connectivity
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1080 is built for 4K and VR, drawing about 180 W and fitting compact cases, though its overclock falls short of Nvidia's launch claims.
9.2
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
15/06/2016
Hands-on review · Temperature tuning
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition runs 1440p at 60 FPS with one card, but it needs a custom fan profile to stop it slowing down.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
20/06/2016
Hands-on test · Custom cooler
Verdict
The EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC ACX 3.0 is a quiet, cool custom card, but its boost clocks vary, so real gains over reference may be smaller than expected.
9.5
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
11/07/2016
Lab test · Fan Stop cooler
Verdict
The Gigabyte GTX 1080 Xtreme Gaming is a fast card with a quiet cooler and a solid power design, but its high factory clocks leave little room to overclock.
9.4
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
13/02/2017
Lab test · Rear copper block
Verdict
The Aorus GTX 1080 Xtreme Edition is a well-built card with a copper block cooling the rear of the chip, best suited to overclockers with room in their case.
8.6
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
26/04/2018
Hands-on test · External GPU
Verdict
The Aorus GTX 1080 Gaming Box is a compact external GTX 1080 for Thunderbolt 3 laptops, but it only reaches full speed on laptops with x4 link speed.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080

  • Exceptional generational performance leap over previous cards like the GTX 980 and Titan X
  • Remains highly capable for 1080p and 1440p gaming even years after launch
  • Excellent power efficiency due to the 16nm FinFET process
  • Impressive clock speeds and strong overclocking potential
  • Founders Edition features a premium build with a vapor-chamber cooler and sturdy backplate
  • Operates quietly even under heavy stock-speed loads
  • Introduced helpful features like 'Fast Sync' to reduce latency without visual tearing

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080

  • Founders Edition carries a significant price premium (often called an 'early-adopter tax') compared to partner cards
  • Does not support modern features like Ray Tracing or DLSS found in the newer RTX series
  • Struggles to maintain a consistent 60fps in true 4K gaming on modern high-detail settings
  • Founder’s Edition blower-style cooler can run hot (around 80-84°C) under sustained load
  • Potential for thermal throttling during heavy overclocking with stock cooling
  • Competing cards (like those with HBM) can be physically smaller than the GTX 1080

Verdict

The Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 is a high-end graphics card built on the 16nm Pascal architecture, featuring 2560 CUDA cores, a base clock of 1607 MHz, and a boost clock of 1733 MHz. It was the first consumer GPU to utilize 8 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit interface, delivering a substantial memory bandwidth of 320 GB/s with a relatively efficient 180W TDP. Its primary pros include exceptional 1440p and entry-level 4K gaming performance, high power efficiency compared to the previous Maxwell generation, and robust support for VR and SLI technology. However, notable cons include its high initial launch price, a physical size that may not fit in compact cases, and the lack of modern dedicated hardware for real-time ray tracing (RTX) found in newer generations.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 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 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found