Pick two to four cards and see them side by side across price, performance, memory, power, technologies and physical size. Every comparable row marks a winner; rows where the cards tie, or where CompareYourGPU has no data, say so instead of guessing.
Pick two to four cards. 2 of 4 selected.
Scroll the table horizontally on narrow screens. The specification column stays fixed.
| Specification | RTX 3090 TiNVIDIA | RTX 5090NVIDIA |
|---|---|---|
| Price and value | ||
| Launch MSRPEssentially tied | $1,999 | $1,999 |
| Current priceCompareYourGPU does not publish a price it has not verified. | Check current price | Check current price |
| Performance per $100Performance index at 1440p per $100 of launch MSRP. | 2.8 | Best in this row: 5.0 |
| Performance | ||
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | 60 | Best in this row: 100 |
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | 55 | Best in this row: 100 |
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | 51 | Best in this row: 100 |
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | 46 | Best in this row: 100 |
| Measured suite average at 1440pNot compared: data missing for at least one cardThird-party geometric mean across their game suite, run with vendor upscaling at Quality. A different test from the estimated row below, not a check on it. | Not tested | 142.4 FPS (ComputerBase) |
| Estimated FPS at 1440pModelled estimate for a typical modern AAA game at High settings with no upscaling. Not a measurement. | 100-145 FPS | Best in this row: 180-260 FPS |
| Memory | ||
| 24 GB | Best in this row: 32 GB | |
| GDDR6X | GDDR7 | |
| 384-bit | Best in this row: 512-bit | |
| 1,008 GB/s | Best in this row: 1,792 GB/s | |
| Memory speed | 21 Gbps | Best in this row: 28 Gbps |
| Graphics processor | ||
| Architecture | Ampere | Blackwell |
| GPU die | GA102 | GB202 |
| Only comparable within one manufacturer. | 10,752 | Best in this row: 21,760 |
| Data unavailable | Data unavailable | |
| 84 | Best in this row: 170 | |
| 336 | Best in this row: 680 | |
| 1,560 MHz | 2,017 MHz | |
| 1,860 MHz | 2,407 MHz | |
| Game clockAMD only. | Data unavailable | Data unavailable |
| Power | ||
| Best in this row: 450 W | 575 W | |
| Vendor figure where published, otherwise board power plus 300 W of headroom. | Best in this row: 850 W | 1,000 W |
| Performance per 100 W | 12.2 | Best in this row: 17.4 |
| Power connectors | 3x 8-pin | 1x 16-pin (12V-2x6) |
| Technologies | ||
| 2nd-generation RT cores | 4th-generation RT cores | |
| DLSS 4 Super Resolution, DLSS Ray Reconstruction, FSR 3.1, XeSS | DLSS 4 Super Resolution, DLSS Ray Reconstruction, FSR 3.1, XeSS | |
| FSR 3.1 Frame Generation (vendor-agnostic, game-dependent) | DLSS 4 Multi Frame Generation | |
| No | Yes | |
| Video encoder | 7th-generation NVENC with HEVC and H.264 encode. No AV1 encode. | 9th-generation NVENC with AV1 and HEVC encode |
| Video decoder | 5th-generation NVDEC with AV1, HEVC and H.264 decode | 6th-generation NVDEC with AV1, HEVC and H.264 decode |
| Display outputs | ||
| DisplayPort | 3x 1.4a | 3x 2.1b |
| HDMI | 1x 2.1 | 1x 2.1b |
| USB-C | None | None |
| Physical | ||
| Length | 313 mm | 304 mm |
| Height from bracket | 138 mm | 137 mm |
| 3 slots | Best in this row: 2 slots | |
| Release | ||
| Launch date | March 29, 2022 | January 30, 2025 |
| Generation | RTX 30 | RTX 50 |
| Availability | Out of production | In production |
Each category is decided by the same numbers used everywhere else on the site. A category with no clear leader says so rather than picking one.
Performance at 1440p
Performance index 100
Ray tracing
Ray tracing index 100
Price
Essentially tied
Performance per dollar
5.0 index points per $100
VRAM
32 GB
Memory bandwidth
1792 GB/s
Efficiency
17.4 index points per 100 W
Lowest power draw
450 W board power
All six axes are normalised to a 0-100 scale so they can share one chart. Performance and ray tracing are CompareYourGPU’s estimated indices; value, VRAM, efficiency and features are each card’s standing relative to every other card tracked here.
| Criterion | RTX 3090 Ti | RTX 5090 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | 55 | 100 |
| Ray tracing | 46 | 100 |
| Value | 0 | 28 |
| VRAM | 100 | 100 |
| Efficiency | 0 | 40 |
| Features | 75 | 100 |
CompareYourGPU estimate aggregated from public review coverage, not a measurement.
Modelled from the performance index. Not a measured benchmark. Real results vary widely by title.
Capacity alone is not the whole story: memory bus width and bandwidth decide how much of it the GPU can actually use.
CompareYourGPU scores value from launch MSRP because it does not carry a verified live price feed. Street prices differ.
Highest estimated performance index at 1440p of the cards compared here, at 100. It is the right answer if frame rate is the only thing you are optimising for.
Delivers the most performance per dollar of the cards compared, at $1,999. Choose this if the difference in price matters more to you than the difference in frame rate.
Strongest ray-traced performance here, with an estimated ray tracing index of 100 at 1440p. It also carries DLSS 4 Super Resolution, which is how ray tracing becomes practical.
Carries 24 GB, the most headroom of the cards compared at 1440p. Memory is usually what dates a card before raw speed does.
Best performance per watt of the cards compared, drawing 575 W. That means less heat, quieter fans and less pressure on your power supply.
Best balance of speed, price and memory of the cards compared: 50% performance at 1440p, 30% performance per dollar, 20% memory headroom. Not necessarily the fastest.
These matchups have their own pages with additional editorial context and a comparison-specific FAQ.
$549 vs $549
The closest thing to a straight fight in the mid-range: two cards launched days apart at almost the same price, with opposite strengths. AMD brings 16 GB of memory, NVIDIA brings stronger ray tracing and the wider upscaling catalogue.
$749 vs $599
Both manufacturers' strongest mid-to-high offering, separated by $150 of launch MSRP. Both carry 16 GB. The question is whether NVIDIA's ray tracing and DLSS advantage is worth the premium over AMD's rasterisation-per-dollar.
$429 vs $349
The two 16 GB cards under $450. Both pair a modest graphics processor with a generous memory pool on a narrow 128-bit bus, and both are aimed squarely at 1080p and entry-level 1440p.
$429 vs $379
Same graphics processor, same clocks, same bandwidth, half the memory, $50 apart. This is the clearest example of a decision that specification sheets make look trivial and real-world use does not.
$1,999 vs $999
Twice the price for a large but not proportional performance gain, plus double the memory and a 215 W increase in board power. The question is whether the top of the range is a product or a statement.
$249 vs $249
The two cheapest current-generation cards, taking opposite approaches. Intel offers 12 GB and a wider memory bus; NVIDIA offers the DLSS ecosystem and lower power draw at the same price.
$299 vs $249
A $50 price gap between NVIDIA's entry 1080p card and Intel's memory-heavy alternative. One has the stronger software ecosystem, the other has 50 percent more VRAM.
$599 vs $999
A $400 gap between AMD's fastest RDNA 4 card and NVIDIA's second-tier Blackwell. Worth examining because the rasterisation gap is much smaller than the price gap, and the ray tracing gap is much larger.