Radeon R7 240 vs GeForce 9800M GTX SLI

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9800M GTX SLI with Radeon R7 240, including specs and performance data.

9800M GTX SLI
2008
1 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
3.07
+31.8%

9800M GTX SLI outperforms R7 240 by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking758841
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.16
Power efficiency1.425.38
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameNB9E-GTXOland
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date15 July 2008 (16 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$69

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores224320
Core clock speed500 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data780 MHz
Number of transistors3016 Million950 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data14.00
Floating-point processing powerno data0.448 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data20

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
Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataN/A
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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1150 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data72 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 data1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire-+
FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX10DirectX® 12
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
CUDA+-

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 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.07 2.33
Recency 15 July 2008 8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 50 Watt

9800M GTX SLI has a 31.8% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 240, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 9800M GTX SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9800M GTX SLI is a notebook card while Radeon R7 240 is a desktop 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 GTX SLI
GeForce 9800M GTX SLI
AMD Radeon R7 240
Radeon R7 240

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.


3.3 8 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 1157 votes

Rate Radeon R7 240 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.