Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano vs GeForce 8800 GTS 112

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameG80Vega 10
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date19 November 2007 (18 years ago)1 October 2017 (8 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1124096
Core clock speed500 MHz1156 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1247 MHz
Number of transistors681 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate28.00319.2
Floating-point processing power0.2688 TFLOPSno data
ROPs2064
TMUs28256
L2 Cache80 KBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm152 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin2x 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 typeGDDR3HBM2
Maximum RAM amount640 MB8 GB
Memory bus width320 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1600 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s409.6 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12.0
Shader Model4.05.0
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 19 November 2007 1 October 2017
Maximum RAM amount 640 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 250 Watt

8800 GTS 112 has 66.7% lower power consumption.

RX Vega 64 Nano, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, a 1180% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 8800 GTS Core 112 and Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano. We've got no test results to judge.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS Core 112
GeForce 8800 GTS Core 112
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano
Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano

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.


1.1 309 votes

Rate GeForce 8800 GTS Core 112 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 5 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 8800 GTS Core 112 or Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.