GeForce 8800 GTS 512 vs GTX 670M

Place in the ranking	655	986
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.03
Power efficiency	4.20	0.75
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GF114	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	22 March 2012 (12 years ago)	11 December 2007 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	336	128
Core clock speed	598 MHz	650 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	135 Watt
Texture fill rate	33.49	41.60
Floating-point processing power	0.8037 TFLOPS	0.416 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	16
TMUs	56	64

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 Express 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	254 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	512 MB
Memory bus width	192bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	820 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72.0 GB/s	52.48 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	No outputs	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	Up to 2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	1.1

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. 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 670M 4.52
+210%

8800 GTS 512 1.46

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 670M 1745
+209%

8800 GTS 512 564

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:

900p	39 +225%	12−14 −225%
Full HD	41 +242%	12−14 −242%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

29.08

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9
+300%

2−3

−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +211%	9−10 −211%
Hitman 3	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +221%	14−16 −221%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +211%	9−10 −211%
Hitman 3	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +221%	14−16 −221%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +211%	9−10 −211%
Hitman 3	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +221%	14−16 −221%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+300%

3−4
−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Hitman 3	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +211%	9−10 −211%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+300%

2−3

−300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+400%

1−2

−400%

This is how GTX 670M and 8800 GTS 512 compete in popular games:

GTX 670M is 225% faster in 900p
GTX 670M is 242% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.52	1.46
Recency	22 March 2012	11 December 2007
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	512 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	135 Watt

GTX 670M has a 209.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 670M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GTS 512 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 670M is a notebook card while GeForce 8800 GTS 512 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.