NVS 3100M vs GeForce 9800M GT

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9800M GT with NVS 3100M, including specs and performance data.

9800M GT
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 65 Watt
0.99
+86.8%

9800M GT outperforms NVS 3100M by an impressive 87% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11081226
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.042.60
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameG92GT218
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date29 July 2008 (16 years ago)7 January 2010 (14 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 cores9616
Core clock speed500 MHz606 MHz
Number of transistors754 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate24.004.848
Floating-point processing power0.24 TFLOPS0.04698 TFLOPS
Gigaflops360no data
ROPs164
TMUs488

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s12.64 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model4.04.1
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+1.2

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

9800M GT 0.99
+86.8%
NVS 3100M 0.53

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.

9800M GT 381
+86.8%
NVS 3100M 204

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.

9800M GT 4011
+258%
NVS 3100M 1121

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 9800M GT is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • 9800M GT is ahead in 20 tests (57%)
  • there's a draw in 15 tests (43%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.99 0.53
Recency 29 July 2008 7 January 2010
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 14 Watt

9800M GT has a 86.8% higher aggregate performance score.

NVS 3100M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 364.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 9800M GT is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9800M GT is a notebook graphics card while NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 9800M GT
GeForce 9800M GT
NVIDIA NVS 3100M
NVS 3100M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 7 votes

Rate GeForce 9800M GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 128 votes

Rate NVS 3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.