GeForce 830M vs 9800M GTS SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800M GTS SLI and GeForce 830M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
830M outperforms 9800M GTS SLI by a substantial 34% 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 | 967 | 885 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.91 | 5.59 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GT | GM108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 July 2008 (17 years ago) | 12 March 2014 (11 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 cores | 128 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 18.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.5888 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 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 Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 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 | no data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| Optimus | - | + |
| GameWorks | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 10−12
−60%
| 16
+60%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−10.5%
|
40−45
+10.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−23.7%
|
45−50
+23.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−25%
|
24−27
+25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−10.5%
|
40−45
+10.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−25%
|
24−27
+25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−10.5%
|
40−45
+10.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−27.8%
|
21−24
+27.8%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−66.7%
|
20−22
+66.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how 9800M GTS SLI and GeForce 830M compete in popular games:
- GeForce 830M is 60% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 9800M GTS SLI is 33% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 830M is 267% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 9800M GTS SLI performs better in 2 tests (4%)
- GeForce 830M performs better in 47 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.77 | 2.38 |
| Recency | 15 July 2008 | 12 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 33 Watt |
GeForce 830M has a 34.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 354.5% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 830M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTS SLI 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.
