GeForce 9800M GT SLI vs GTX 280M SLI

Place in performance ranking	702	858
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.04	0.09
Architecture	G9x (2007−2010)	G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code name	N10E-GTX	NB9E-GT2
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	2 March 2009 (15 years ago)	15 July 2008 (15 years ago)
Current price	$149	$545

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 280M SLI has 1056% better value for money than 9800M GT SLI.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	256	192
Core clock speed	585 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	1508 Million	1508 Million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	130 Watt

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 280M SLI and GeForce 9800M GT SLI compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	large
SLI options	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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	950 MHz	800 MHz
Shared memory	-	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	10	10
CUDA	+	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 280M SLI 3.34
+70.4%

9800M GT SLI 1.96

GTX 280M SLI outperforms 9800M GT SLI by 70% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 280M SLI 9435
+50.5%

9800M GT SLI 6271

GTX 280M SLI outperforms 9800M GT SLI by 50% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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 Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7

no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	6−7	no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7	no data
Far Cry 5	7−8	no data
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10	no data
Forza Horizon 4	14−16	no data
Hitman 3	7−8	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22	no data
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18	no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	6−7	no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7	no data
Far Cry 5	7−8	no data
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10	no data
Forza Horizon 4	14−16	no data
Hitman 3	7−8	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22	no data
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14	no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18	no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7	no data
Far Cry 5	7−8	no data
Forza Horizon 4	14−16	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14	no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18	no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7	no data
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5	no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	no data
Far Cry 5	5−6	no data
Forza Horizon 4	5−6	no data
Hitman 3	8−9	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9	no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	no data
Far Cry 5	2−3	no data
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4	no data
Metro Exodus	5−6	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	no data

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

no data

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.34	1.96
Recency	2 March 2009	15 July 2008
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	55 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	130 Watt