Radeon RX Vega 3 vs GeForce 9800M GTS SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800M GTS SLI with Radeon RX Vega 3, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 3 outperforms 9800M GTS SLI by an impressive 54% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 984 | 860 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.92 | 14.23 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GT | Picasso |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 July 2008 (18 years ago) | 20 November 2019 (6 years ago) |
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 cores | 128 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 4,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 13.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.4224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 12 |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | IGP |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 type | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 Connectors | no data | Motherboard Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 HD | 7−8
−71.4%
| 12
+71.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−867%
|
29
+867%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
−600%
|
7
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−633%
|
22
+633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−50%
|
9
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−75%
|
14
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−17.9%
|
45−50
+17.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+65.2%
|
23
−65.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−5%
|
21
+5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−87.5%
|
14−16
+87.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−350%
|
9
+350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−17.9%
|
45−50
+17.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+5.3%
|
19
−5.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+100%
|
4
−100%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−17.9%
|
45−50
+17.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−87.5%
|
14−16
+87.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−38.9%
|
24−27
+38.9%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−85.7%
|
24−27
+85.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how 9800M GTS SLI and RX Vega 3 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 3 is 71% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 9800M GTS SLI is 100% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX Vega 3 is 867% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 9800M GTS SLI performs better in 5 tests (10%)
- RX Vega 3 performs better in 43 tests (83%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.79 | 2.76 |
| Recency | 15 July 2008 | 20 November 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 15 Watt |
RX Vega 3 has a 54% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 358% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 3 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTS SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9800M GTS SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX Vega 3 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
