GeForce 8800 GT vs GTX 1080 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile with GeForce 8800 GT, including specs and performance data.
1080 Mobile outperforms 8800 GT by a whopping 2899% 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 | 179 | 1121 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.02 | 0.03 |
| Power efficiency | 16.74 | 0.67 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | G92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 29 October 2007 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499.99 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1080 Mobile has 53300% better value for money than 8800 GT.
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 | 2560 | 112 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1771 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 283.4 | 33.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.068 TFLOPS | 0.336 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 160 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 64 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 | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Height | no data | Single Slot |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | 2-way |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10 GB/s | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 57.6 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 | DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | no data | 128bit |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
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 | 114
+3700%
| 3−4
−3700%
|
| 1440p | 71
+3450%
| 2−3
−3450%
|
| 4K | 55
+5400%
| 1−2
−5400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.39
+2552%
| 116.33
−2552%
|
| 1440p | 7.04
+2378%
| 174.50
−2378%
|
| 4K | 9.09
+3739%
| 349.00
−3739%
|
- GTX 1080 Mobile has 2552% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Mobile has 2378% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Mobile has 3739% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+3000%
|
6−7
−3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 115
+3733%
|
3−4
−3733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+3000%
|
6−7
−3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 121
+2925%
|
4−5
−2925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+2933%
|
3−4
−2933%
|
| Fortnite | 143
+3475%
|
4−5
−3475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108
+3500%
|
3−4
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+3400%
|
3−4
−3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+3225%
|
4−5
−3225%
|
| Valorant | 188
+3033%
|
6−7
−3033%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 112
+3633%
|
3−4
−3633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+3000%
|
6−7
−3000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2978%
|
9−10
−2978%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+3350%
|
4−5
−3350%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 119
+3867%
|
3−4
−3867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 117
+3800%
|
3−4
−3800%
|
| Fortnite | 201
+3250%
|
6−7
−3250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 106
+3433%
|
3−4
−3433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+3400%
|
3−4
−3400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
+3867%
|
3−4
−3867%
|
| Metro Exodus | 73
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 115
+3733%
|
3−4
−3733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 142
+3450%
|
4−5
−3450%
|
| Valorant | 186
+3000%
|
6−7
−3000%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+3300%
|
3−4
−3300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Dota 2 | 120
+2900%
|
4−5
−2900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 117
+3800%
|
3−4
−3800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 108
+3500%
|
3−4
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
+3300%
|
3−4
−3300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 91
+2933%
|
3−4
−2933%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Valorant | 137
+3325%
|
4−5
−3325%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 150
+2900%
|
5−6
−2900%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+3850%
|
2−3
−3850%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+3200%
|
7−8
−3200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+3200%
|
2−3
−3200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+3400%
|
5−6
−3400%
|
| Valorant | 183
+2950%
|
6−7
−2950%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 86
+4200%
|
2−3
−4200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 86
+4200%
|
2−3
−4200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 87
+4250%
|
2−3
−4250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 88
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 76
+3700%
|
2−3
−3700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Valorant | 178
+3460%
|
5−6
−3460%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 100−105
+3233%
|
3−4
−3233%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 33
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 42
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
This is how GTX 1080 Mobile and 8800 GT compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 3700% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 3450% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 5400% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.69 | 1.09 |
| Recency | 15 August 2016 | 29 October 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 105 Watt |
GTX 1080 Mobile has a 2899.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 306.3% more advanced lithography process.
8800 GT, on the other hand, has 42.9% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 8800 GT 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.
