Radeon RX 560X Mobile vs GeForce 9800 GTX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800 GTX with Radeon RX 560X Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RX 560X Mobile outperforms 9800 GTX by a whopping 442% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 905 | 433 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.09 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.98 | 11.49 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 28 March 2008 (16 years ago) | 11 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 128 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 1275 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1202 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 43.20 | 81.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4321 TFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 70.4 GB/s | 92.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | HDTVDual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | Via Adapter | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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:
| Full HD | 6−7
−467%
| 34
+467%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 49.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
This is how 9800 GTX and RX 560X Mobile compete in popular games:
- RX 560X Mobile is 467% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.94 | 10.51 |
| Recency | 28 March 2008 | 11 April 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 65 Watt |
RX 560X Mobile has a 441.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 115.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560X Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800 GTX in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9800 GTX is a desktop card while Radeon RX 560X Mobile is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
