NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080

The 4090's speed with half the VRAM story: 717 GB/s and 16 GB — the Ti Super's class at 320 W and the 4080's launch price, which is to say: the wrong side of that price line.

16 GB GDDR6X 717 GB/s 256-bit bus 320 W TDP

Technical specifications

GPU die
AD102
CUDA cores
9728
Boost clock
~2.51 GHz
VRAM
16 GB GDDR6X
Memory bus
256-bit
Memory bandwidth
717 GB/s
PCIe
4.0 x16
NVLink
none
TDP
320 W
Release
Nov 2022

What these specs mean for llama.cpp

Almost-flagship, mid-flagship price

The 4080 is a 9728-core AD102 with a 256-bit bus at 717 GB/s — ~6.7% above the Ti Super, ~35% below the 4090. Token generation: ~80–105 t/s on 8B, ~48–62 t/s on 13B Q4, ~35–45 t/s on 13B Q6. Prompt processing (~950–1250 t/s on 13B) is the strongest in the 16 GB tier. It is, in pure performance terms, a great card. The problem is the receipt: it launched next to the 4070 Ti Super for the same VRAM, ~7% less bandwidth and a ~2× price.

The 16 GB tier, again

Same model list as the Ti Super: 13B at Q6/IQ8, MoE 30B at Q3, 27B Q3 at short context. The 256-bit bus doesn't change what fits — it only changes how fast it streams, and here the streaming is genuinely good.

Power and placement

320 W, 750 W PSU, 3-slot Founders cooling. In a multi-card plan the 4080 is the 16 GB tile with the best per-tile bandwidth in its generation — a pair (32 GB, 640 W) is a proper 27B Q4/Q5 rig.

The short form Performance: 9/10 for the 16 GB tier. Value: the Ti Super's shadow. At launch pricing this card lost its own argument — it only re-enters the conversation at a heavy discount or when you already own one and want the second tile.

The MTP question: if your model ships a built-in multi-token-prediction head (Qwen 3.5/3.6/3.8, Gemma 4), the one-flag speculative pass (--spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-n-max 2 --parallel 1) is worth +45–70% (estimated) on token generation here; no per-card A/B in the record; the estimate sits between the measured 3090 Ti (+45%) and 4090 (+60%) results at n-max 2. The price is ~0.6–2 GB of VRAM, the output is bit-identical to the unaccelerated run, and models without MTP heads (Llama class) see nothing. Full tuning rules in the MTP guide.

Expected performance (Q4_K_M, single GPU)

ModelSize on GPUToken genToken gen (MTP est.)Prompt proc.Fits?
8B Q8_0~9.7 GB~80–105 t/s~116–179 t/s~950–1250 t/s✅ 32K+ ctx
13B Q4_K_M~8.5 GB~48–62 t/s~69–105 t/s~950–1250 t/s✅ 32K+ ctx
13B Q6_K~13.8 GB~35–45 t/s~50–77 t/s~800–1000 t/s✅ 8–16K ctx
27B Q3_K_M~15.8 GB~12–16 t/s~17–27 t/s~550–700 t/s⚠️ 4–8K ctx
MoE 30B-A3B (Q3)~14.5 GB~34–45 t/s~49–77 t/s~850–1050 t/s⚠️ 4–8K ctx, 3B active

MTP est. = rough prior with --spec-type draft-mtp for models that ship MTP heads (Qwen 3.5/3.6/3.8, Gemma 4); Llama-class models get no MTP speedup. Actual gains depend on model, quant, context length, llama.cpp build and your card — sweep --spec-draft-n-max, don't trust the column blindly. MTP guide →

Figures assume full offload (-ngl 99), ~8K context and batch 2048. Token speed tracks the memory bus almost linearly, so treat ranges as class estimates — your llama.cpp build and the model's attention layout shift them.

27B models (Qwen class) — Q4 / Q5 / Q6 / Q8

QuantGGUF size1× 4080 (16 GB)2× 4080 (32 GB)
Q3_K_M~15.8 GB⚠️ ~12–16 t/s, 4–8K ctx✅ (overkill)
Q4_K_M~19 GB❌ ~3 GB over✅ ~23–30 t/s, 8–16K ctx
Q5_K_M~22 GB❌✅ ~20–25 t/s, 8K ctx
Q6_K~25 GB❌✅ ~17–22 t/s, 8K ctx
Q8_0~33 GB❌❌ ~1 GB over

Single-card 27B is the Q3 line, same as the Ti Super but ~10% faster. The pair (32 GB, 640 W) is the 4080's real story: 27B Q4 at 8–16K with the best split-rig bandwidth of the generation's 16 GB tier. A step below the 2× 3090 rig in everything, a step above the Ti Super pair in speed-per-tile.

Practical tips

Multi-card: 2×, 3×, 4×

PCIe 4.0, ~25–35% tax. 16 GB tiles: the pair lands on 27B Q4 at 32 GB with the fastest per-tile bus of the generation's 16 GB tier.

BuildGPU powerVRAM13B Q8_027B Q4_K_M27B Q5_K_M
2× 4080640 W32 GB~58–74 t/s, 16K+ ctx✅ ~23–30 t/s, 8–16K ctx~20–25 t/s, 8K ctx

The 2× 4080 rig is the closest Ada-built thing to a 3090 pair: similar VRAM (32 vs 48 GB), ~40% slower token speed (the split tax vs NVLink), at about half the build cost of a used 3090 pair.

The price check, again 2× 4070 Ti Super (570 W, 32 GB) does the same 27B work at 70 W less total power for half the money. The 4080 pair is a speed hobby, not a value buy.

Offloading (CPU RAM)

When a model won't fit, -ngl N parks the tail layers on the CPU. The mental model that saves pain: offloaded layers don't run at a fraction of GPU speed — they run at CPU speed. Handy moves: peel the last 2–4 layers off to reclaim ~0.5–1 GB of VRAM for almost nothing; keep MoE experts on CPU with --n-cpu-moe; park the output embedding with -ot output=CPU on big models. Budget 32 GB system RAM for 27B-class offload, 64 GB for 70B. And never offload the KV cache — the session becomes unusable.

2-card example llama-server -m 27b-q4_k_m.gguf -ngl 99 -sm layer -c 16384 --tensor-split 1,1

Recommended llama.cpp command

llama-server -m llama-3.1-13b-q6_k.gguf -ngl 99 -c 16384 -b 2048 -ub 2048 --host 127.0.0.1 --port 8080

Verdict

The 4080 is a fast, well-specced card that lost a pricing war to its little brother. Performance: top of the 16 GB tier, no argument. Purchase: the 4070 Ti Super does 93% of the job at half the money. It re-enters the recommendation at a steep discount, in pairs, or as a used-market second tile for a 27B rig.

← RTX 4070 Ti Super next: RTX 4090 →