GeForce 8800M GTS vs GTX 275

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
260 Core 216 Rev. 2 260 Rev. 2 275 275 PhysX Edition 285 285 Mac Edition 285 X2 295 295 Single PCB
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
8200M G 8200M G mGPU AMD 8200M G mGPU Intel 8400M G 8400M GS 8400M GT 8600M GS 8600M GT 8600M GT Mac Edition 8600M GT SLI 8700M GT 8700M GT SLI 8800M GTS 8800M GTX 8800M GTX SLI

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 275 with GeForce 8800M GTS, including specs and performance data.

GTX 275
2009
896 MB GDDR3, 219 Watt
3.18
+253%

GTX 275 outperforms 8800M GTS by a whopping 253% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
GTX 275 GTX 275
8800M GTS 8800M GTS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7871172
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.31no data
Power efficiency1.131.40
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGT200BG92
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date15 January 2009 (16 years ago)1 November 2007 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores24064
Core clock speed633 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)219 Watt50 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate50.6416.00
Floating-point processing power0.6739 TFLOPS0.16 TFLOPS
ROPs2816
TMUs8032
L2 Cache224 KB64 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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-HE
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount896 MB512 MB
Memory bus width448 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1134 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth127.0 GB/s51.2 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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.04.0
OpenGL3.03.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+1.1

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

GTX 275 3.18
+253%
8800M GTS 0.90

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.

GTX 275 1347
+253%
Samples: 799
8800M GTS 382
Samples: 36

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

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 40 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 3.18 0.90
Recency 15 January 2009 1 November 2007
Maximum RAM amount 896 MB 512 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 219 Watt 50 Watt

GTX 275 has a 253.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 75% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 18.2% more advanced lithography process.

8800M GTS, on the other hand, has 338% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 275 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800M GTS in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 275 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 8800M GTS is a notebook one.

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 GTX 275
GeForce GTX 275
NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTS
GeForce 8800M GTS
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GTX 275 GeForce GTX 275
vs
ATI HD 4870 X2 Radeon HD 4870 X2
8800M GTS GeForce 8800M GTS
vs
GTS 350M GeForce GTS 350M
GTX 275 GeForce GTX 275
vs
ATI HD 4870 Radeon HD 4870
GTS 250 GeForce GTS 250
vs
TITAN V CEO Edition TITAN V CEO Edition
9800 GTX+ GeForce 9800 GTX+
vs
R4 (Beema) Radeon R4 (Beema)
9800 GTX+ GeForce 9800 GTX+
vs
E9171 MCM Radeon E9171 MCM
9800 GTX+ GeForce 9800 GTX+
vs
RTX 4090 GeForce RTX 4090
GTX 275 GTX 275
vs
GTX 550 Ti GTX 550 Ti
GTX 275 GeForce GTX 275
vs
R5 340X OEM Radeon R5 340X OEM
GTX 275 GeForce GTX 275
vs
GT 730A GeForce GT 730A
GTX 295 GeForce GTX 295
vs
RTX A5000 RTX A5000
9400 GT PCI GeForce 9400 GT PCI
vs
RX 6850 XT Radeon RX 6850 XT
9400 GT PCI GeForce 9400 GT PCI
vs
RX 6800 3456SP Radeon RX 6800 3456SP

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.7 140 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 275 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 19 votes

Rate GeForce 8800M GTS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 275 or GeForce 8800M GTS, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.