Arc A310 vs GeForce 9800 GTX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9800 GTX and Arc A310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

9800 GTX
2008, $299
512 MB GDDR3, 140 Watt
1.85

A310 outperforms 9800 GTX by a whopping 608% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking978436
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.09no data
Power efficiency1.0233.82
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Xe-HPG (2022−2024)
GPU code nameG92DG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date28 March 2008 (18 years ago)12 October 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores128768
Core clock speed675 MHz1750 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1750 MHz
Number of transistors754 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt30 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate43.2056.00
Floating-point processing power0.4321 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1616
TMUs6432
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data6
L1 Cacheno data1.1 MB
L2 Cache64 KB4 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
SLI options+-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1100 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth70.4 GB/s124.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsHDTVDual Link DVI4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMIVia Adapter-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.6
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.4
CUDA+-
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

9800 GTX 1.85
Arc A310 13.10
+608%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

9800 GTX 769
Samples: 3
Arc A310 5456
+609%
Samples: 72

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD5−6
−640%
37
+640%

Cost per frame, $

1080p59.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 54
+0%
54
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 154
+0%
154
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 42
+0%
42
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 40
+0%
40
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 27
+0%
27
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
+0%
28
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56
+0%
56
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 44
+0%
44
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how 9800 GTX and Arc A310 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A310 is 640% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.85 13.10
Recency 28 March 2008 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 30 Watt

Arc A310 has a 608% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 983% more advanced lithography process, and 367% lower power consumption.

The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800 GTX in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 237 votes

Rate GeForce 9800 GTX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 315 votes

Rate Arc A310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 9800 GTX or Arc A310, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.