Moore Threads MTT S80 vs GeForce GT 550M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 550M with Moore Threads MTT S80, including specs and performance data.
Moore Threads MTT S80 outperforms 550M by a whopping 345% 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 | 1081 | 656 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.90 | 1.77 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | MUSA |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Chunxiao |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (15 years ago) | no data |
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 | 96 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 22,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 255 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.600 | 460.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1824 TFLOPS | 14.75 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 256 |
| TMUs | 16 | 256 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 285 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| 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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 15
−333%
| 65−70
+333%
|
| Full HD | 24
−317%
| 100−110
+317%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−324%
|
140−150
+324%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
−333%
|
130−140
+333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−341%
|
75−80
+341%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−324%
|
140−150
+324%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−341%
|
75−80
+341%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−324%
|
140−150
+324%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−329%
|
60−65
+329%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−333%
|
65−70
+333%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−338%
|
35−40
+338%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
This is how GT 550M and Moore Threads MTT S80 compete in popular games:
- Moore Threads MTT S80 is 333% faster in 900p
- Moore Threads MTT S80 is 317% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.31 | 5.83 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 255 Watt |
GT 550M has 629% lower power consumption.
Moore Threads MTT S80, on the other hand, has a 345% higher aggregate performance score, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233% more advanced lithography process.
The Moore Threads MTT S80 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 550M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 550M is a notebook graphics card while Moore Threads MTT S80 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.
