Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) vs GeForce 9800M GTX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800M GTX and Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 (Stoney Ridge) outperforms 9800M GTX by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1074 | 994 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 2.24 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Stoney Ridge |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 July 2008 (16 years ago) | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $328.50 | 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 | 112 | 192 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 112 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 12-45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.28 TFLOPS | no data |
| Gigaflops | 420 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 56 | no data |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | no data |
| 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 outputs | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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 | 7−8
−28.6%
| 9
+28.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 46.93 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−53.8%
|
20
+53.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Metro Exodus | 2
+0%
|
2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how 9800M GTX and R5 (Stoney Ridge) compete in popular games:
- R5 (Stoney Ridge) is 29% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R5 (Stoney Ridge) is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Stoney Ridge) is ahead in 28 tests (68%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (32%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.10 | 1.37 |
| Recency | 15 July 2008 | 1 June 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 12 Watt |
R5 (Stoney Ridge) has a 24.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 525% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTX in performance tests.
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.
