GeForce G105M vs GTX 980M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980M SLI and GeForce G105M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
980M SLI outperforms G105M by a whopping 7291% 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 | 265 | 1398 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.15 | 1.77 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | no data | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (11 years ago) | 16 July 2009 (17 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 | 3072 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 1038 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1127 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2x 5200 Million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 4.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.03424 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 38 |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 8 GB | Up to 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 500 (DDR2)/700 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 8 (DDR2)/11 (GDDR3) |
| 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 | VGADual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
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 | 135
+13400%
| 1−2
−13400%
|
| Full HD | 110
+10900%
| 1−2
−10900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+13500%
|
1−2
−13500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+9400%
|
1−2
−9400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+13500%
|
1−2
−13500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+11800%
|
1−2
−11800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+9500%
|
1−2
−9500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+7500%
|
1−2
−7500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+9400%
|
1−2
−9400%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+8150%
|
2−3
−8150%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+9400%
|
1−2
−9400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+13500%
|
1−2
−13500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+8467%
|
3−4
−8467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+12100%
|
1−2
−12100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+11800%
|
1−2
−11800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+9500%
|
1−2
−9500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+7500%
|
1−2
−7500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+8600%
|
1−2
−8600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+9400%
|
1−2
−9400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 160−170
+8150%
|
2−3
−8150%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+9400%
|
1−2
−9400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+12100%
|
1−2
−12100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+9500%
|
1−2
−9500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+9400%
|
1−2
−9400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 160−170
+8150%
|
2−3
−8150%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+11800%
|
1−2
−11800%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+8450%
|
2−3
−8450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8600%
|
2−3
−8600%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+9550%
|
2−3
−9550%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 130−140
+13300%
|
1−2
−13300%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 980M SLI and GeForce G105M compete in popular games:
- GTX 980M SLI is 13400% faster in 900p
- GTX 980M SLI is 10900% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.65 | 0.32 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 16 July 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 14 Watt |
GTX 980M SLI has a 7291% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce G105M, on the other hand, has 1329% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G105M 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.
