GeForce 8800 GT vs GTX 880M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 880M with GeForce 8800 GT, including specs and performance data.
GTX 880M outperforms 8800 GT by a whopping 721% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 462 | 1064 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.03 |
| Power efficiency | 5.58 | 0.66 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | G92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 29 October 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $349 |
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 | 1536 | 112 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 993 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 127.1 | 33.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.05 TFLOPS | 0.336 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 56 |
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, PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Height | no data | Single Slot |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | 2-way |
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 | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 2500 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 57.6 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 | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | no data | 128bit |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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:
| 900p | 135
+744%
| 16−18
−744%
|
| Full HD | 58
+729%
| 7−8
−729%
|
| 4K | 23
+1050%
| 2−3
−1050%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 49.86 |
| 4K | no data | 174.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+833%
|
6−7
−833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+800%
|
10−11
−800%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+788%
|
16−18
−788%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+738%
|
8−9
−738%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+833%
|
6−7
−833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+800%
|
10−11
−800%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+738%
|
8−9
−738%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+800%
|
10−11
−800%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+833%
|
6−7
−833%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+788%
|
8−9
−788%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+767%
|
12−14
−767%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
This is how GTX 880M and 8800 GT compete in popular games:
- GTX 880M is 744% faster in 900p
- GTX 880M is 729% faster in 1080p
- GTX 880M is 1050% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.93 | 1.21 |
| Recency | 12 March 2014 | 29 October 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 105 Watt |
GTX 880M has a 720.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
8800 GT, on the other hand, has 16.2% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 880M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 880M is a notebook card while GeForce 8800 GT 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.
