AX Gaming GeForce RTX 5080 X3W OC VS AX Gaming Rebel GeForce RTX 5080 X3W Max

Both cards share the same architectural foundation: identical base clocks of 2295 MHz, the same 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, 112 ROPs, and matching memory speeds of 1875 MHz. This means the bulk of their compute machinery is equivalent, and real-world gaming workloads at the same clock speeds would be indistinguishable between them.

The meaningful separation appears at boost frequencies. The AX Gaming Rebel RTX 5080 X3W Max reaches a GPU turbo of 2670 MHz, versus 2640 MHz on the X3W OC — a 30 MHz advantage that cascades into every throughput metric. The X3W Max delivers 57.42 TFLOPS of floating-point performance against 56.77 TFLOPS, a 897.1 GTexels/s texture rate versus 887 GTexels/s, and a pixel rate of 299 GPixel/s compared to 295.7 GPixel/s. In practical terms, higher boost clocks translate to more sustained performance headroom in thermally demanding scenarios and in titles that are sensitive to shader throughput.

The X3W Max holds a clear, if narrow, performance edge in this group. The gains — roughly 1.1% across compute and texture metrics — are modest and unlikely to be felt in most gaming scenarios, but they are consistent and directly implied by the boost clock advantage. For users prioritizing peak theoretical throughput, the X3W Max is the stronger choice; for those indifferent to marginal frequency differences, the two cards are effectively matched.

On memory, these two cards are completely identical across every measurable dimension. Both carry 16GB of GDDR7 VRAM over a 256-bit bus, running at an effective speed of 30,000 MHz and delivering a peak bandwidth of 960 GB/s. There is no differentiator to weigh here — the memory subsystem is a straight copy between the two SKUs.

That said, the specifications themselves are worth contextualizing. GDDR7 at 960 GB/s represents a substantial bandwidth ceiling, well-suited to feeding the GPU's shader array in high-resolution workloads, texture-heavy scenes, and bandwidth-sensitive tasks like video encoding or AI inference. The 256-bit bus keeps latency predictable, and ECC memory support adds a layer of data integrity relevant to prosumers or anyone running the card in semi-professional workloads alongside gaming.

This group is a complete tie. Neither card holds any memory advantage over the other, and memory specifications should play no role in choosing between the X3W OC and the X3W Max.

Feature parity is total between these two cards. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate and ray tracing, the combination that underpins modern real-time lighting effects in titles like Cyberpunk 2077 and Alan Wake 2. DLSS support is present on both, enabling AI-driven upscaling that can significantly boost frame rates with minimal visual cost — a practically important feature for high-resolution gaming on a card of this class.

Neither card supports XeSS, which is expected for an NVIDIA-based GPU. Both include Intel Resizable BAR, allowing the CPU to access the full VRAM pool simultaneously rather than in chunks, which can yield modest frame rate improvements in CPU-bound scenarios. Support for up to 4 displays and multi-display technology is identical, as is the presence of RGB lighting for aesthetics-conscious builds.

There is no feature-based reason to choose one over the other — this group is a complete tie. Every software capability, API version, and display configuration is shared identically between the X3W OC and the X3W Max.

The port configuration is identical on both cards: 3 DisplayPort outputs and 1 HDMI 2.1b port, totalling four display connections — which aligns with the four-display limit noted in the Features group. The absence of USB-C, DVI, and mini DisplayPort outputs is consistent across both SKUs.

HDMI 2.1b is the most capable consumer HDMI standard available, supporting up to 10K resolution, high frame rates at 4K and 8K, and Variable Refresh Rate — making it well-suited for connecting to a high-end TV or monitor without compromises. The three DisplayPort outputs give multi-monitor users flexible options for daisy-chaining or running independent displays simultaneously.

Port selection is a complete tie. Users deciding between the X3W OC and the X3W Max will find zero difference in connectivity, and neither card offers any advantage in display output flexibility or protocol support.

At their core, these two cards are built from the same silicon: identical Blackwell architecture, a 5nm process node, 45.6 billion transistors, and a 360W TDP. This means thermal planning, power supply requirements, and case ventilation considerations are exactly the same for both — buyers need not factor in any difference in power draw or heat output when choosing between them.

Where they diverge is physical footprint. The X3W Max is meaningfully larger, measuring 358mm wide and 148mm tall, versus 316mm and 131mm for the X3W OC. That is a 42mm length difference — not trivial in a compact or mid-tower case. The extra size of the X3W Max likely accommodates a larger cooler, which could support better sustained thermal performance under load, but no thermal or cooling data is provided here to confirm that. What is confirmed is that the X3W Max demands more physical clearance, making case compatibility a real consideration.

The X3W OC has a practical advantage in this group purely by virtue of its smaller dimensions, offering the same TDP and architecture in a more case-friendly package. Builders working with tighter enclosures should take note of the X3W Max's significantly larger footprint before committing.