ATI Radeon 9800 PRO vs GeForce GTX 260M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260M with Radeon 9800 PRO, including specs and performance data.
GTX 260M outperforms ATI 9800 PRO by a whopping 533% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1120 | 1428 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 0.23 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Rage 8 (2002−2007) |
| GPU code name | G92 | R350 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 March 2003 (21 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $399 |
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 380 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 117 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 47 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.80 | 3.040 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.308 TFLOPS | no data |
| Gigaflops | 462 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 8 |
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 | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | AGP 8x |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x Molex |
| SLI options | 2-way | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no data |
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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 950 MHz | 340 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | 21.76 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 9.0 (9_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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.
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 | 27
+575%
| 4−5
−575%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 99.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 5−6 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 6−7 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 260M and ATI 9800 PRO compete in popular games:
- GTX 260M is 575% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.95 | 0.15 |
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 1 March 2003 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 47 Watt |
GTX 260M has a 533.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 130.8% more advanced lithography process.
ATI 9800 PRO, on the other hand, has 38.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 260M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9800 PRO in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M is a notebook card while Radeon 9800 PRO 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.
