GeForce 9800 GTX+ vs GTX 280M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280M SLI with GeForce 9800 GTX+, including specs and performance data.
280M SLI outperforms 9800 GTX+ by a whopping 173% 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 | 793 | 1102 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 1.63 | 0.63 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | G92B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (16 years ago) | 16 January 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 256 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 738 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 141 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 47.23 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.47 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 70.4 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 | no data | HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.17 | 1.16 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 16 January 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 141 Watt |
GTX 280M SLI has a 173.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 month, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
9800 GTX+, on the other hand, has 6.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 280M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800 GTX+ in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 280M SLI is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 9800 GTX+ 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.
