Radeon RX 7700 XT vs GeForce 9800M GTX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800M GTX with Radeon RX 7700 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 7700 XT outperforms 9800M GTX by a whopping 4881% 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 | 1113 | 60 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | 70.06 |
| Power efficiency | 1.10 | 16.72 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 July 2008 (17 years ago) | 25 August 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $328.50 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 7700 XT has 233433% better value for money than 9800M GTX.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 3456 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 112 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1435 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2544 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 245 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.00 | 549.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.28 TFLOPS | 35.17 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 420 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 56 | 216 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 54 |
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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 3−4
−6100%
| 186
+6100%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−5000%
| 102
+5000%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−5800%
| 59
+5800%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 109.50
−4436%
| 2.41
+4436%
|
| 1440p | 164.25
−3631%
| 4.40
+3631%
|
| 4K | 328.50
−4217%
| 7.61
+4217%
|
- RX 7700 XT has 4436% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 7700 XT has 3631% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 7700 XT has 4217% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−9550%
|
193
+9550%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−3740%
|
192
+3740%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 150−160 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7800%
|
158
+7800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−9300%
|
188
+9300%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−12050%
|
240−250
+12050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3871%
|
278
+3871%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 160−170 |
| God of War | 5−6
−3660%
|
188
+3660%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−828%
|
290−300
+828%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 150−160 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−969%
|
270−280
+969%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6500%
|
132
+6500%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−4567%
|
700−750
+4567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−8950%
|
181
+8950%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−12050%
|
240−250
+12050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3786%
|
272
+3786%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 160−170 |
| God of War | 5−6
−2880%
|
149
+2880%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−7500%
|
152
+7500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4817%
|
295
+4817%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−828%
|
290−300
+828%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 150−160 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6000%
|
122
+6000%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−4567%
|
700−750
+4567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−8250%
|
167
+8250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3200%
|
231
+3200%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1940%
|
102
+1940%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2700%
|
168
+2700%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−828%
|
290−300
+828%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−12050%
|
240−250
+12050%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−4133%
|
127
+4133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−6500%
|
350−400
+6500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1491%
|
170−180
+1491%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−16900%
|
300−350
+16900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 80 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 157 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−6467%
|
197
+6467%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 120 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−7400%
|
150−160
+7400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−647%
|
112
+647%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−5050%
|
300−350
+5050%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 0−1 | 54 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 351
+0%
|
351
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 344
+0%
|
344
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 243
+0%
|
243
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| God of War | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
This is how 9800M GTX and RX 7700 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 7700 XT is 6100% faster in 1080p
- RX 7700 XT is 5000% faster in 1440p
- RX 7700 XT is 5800% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 7700 XT is 16900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 7700 XT performs better in 37 tests (70%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (30%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.08 | 53.79 |
| Recency | 15 July 2008 | 25 August 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 245 Watt |
9800M GTX has 226.7% lower power consumption.
RX 7700 XT, on the other hand, has a 4880.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTX in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9800M GTX is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 7700 XT 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.
