GeForce RTX 2080 Ti vs 9800M GTS SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800M GTS SLI with GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Ti outperforms 9800M GTS SLI by a whopping 2784% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 910 | 48 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 21.59 |
| Power efficiency | 0.89 | 15.43 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GT | TU102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 July 2008 (16 years ago) | 20 September 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
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 | 4352 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1545 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 420.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 13.45 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 88 |
| TMUs | no data | 272 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 544 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 68 |
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 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 11 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 352 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 616.0 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 | no data | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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 | 5−6
−3240%
| 167
+3240%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−3025%
| 125
+3025%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−3033%
| 94
+3033%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.98 |
| 1440p | no data | 7.99 |
| 4K | no data | 10.63 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−3140%
|
160−170
+3140%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−3075%
|
120−130
+3075%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−3140%
|
160−170
+3140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−4150%
|
170
+4150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−3075%
|
120−130
+3075%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−6700%
|
136
+6700%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−4214%
|
302
+4214%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1922%
|
182
+1922%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−7600%
|
150−160
+7600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1727%
|
201
+1727%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−650%
|
285
+650%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−3140%
|
160−170
+3140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−4000%
|
164
+4000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−632%
|
270−280
+632%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−3075%
|
120−130
+3075%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−595%
|
146
+595%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−6400%
|
130
+6400%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−3214%
|
232
+3214%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1911%
|
181
+1911%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−7600%
|
150−160
+7600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−4367%
|
134
+4367%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−3467%
|
107
+3467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1655%
|
193
+1655%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−3429%
|
247
+3429%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−603%
|
267
+603%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−3875%
|
159
+3875%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−3075%
|
120−130
+3075%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−571%
|
141
+571%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−6000%
|
122
+6000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1767%
|
168
+1767%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1636%
|
191
+1636%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1829%
|
135
+1829%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−582%
|
259
+582%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−2986%
|
216
+2986%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−2000%
|
40−45
+2000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−2975%
|
350−400
+2975%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 110−120 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1246%
|
170−180
+1246%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1946%
|
266
+1946%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−6700%
|
65−70
+6700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5750%
|
117
+5750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3575%
|
147
+3575%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−4933%
|
151
+4933%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2100%
|
40−45
+2100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−847%
|
142
+847%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−2778%
|
259
+2778%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−3375%
|
139
+3375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3800%
|
78
+3800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−2833%
|
88
+2833%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2533%
|
79
+2533%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270
+0%
|
270
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
This is how 9800M GTS SLI and RTX 2080 Ti compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Ti is 3240% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Ti is 3025% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Ti is 3033% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 2080 Ti is 7600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Ti is ahead in 54 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.95 | 56.24 |
| Recency | 15 July 2008 | 20 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 11 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 250 Watt |
9800M GTS SLI has 66.7% lower power consumption.
RTX 2080 Ti, on the other hand, has a 2784.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 2100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTS SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9800M GTS SLI is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 2080 Ti is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
