GeForce GT 625M vs GTX 980 SLI Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile and GeForce GT 625M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 980 SLI Mobile outperforms GT 625M by a whopping 2955% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 120 | 1046 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.18 | 5.89 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | N16E-GXX SLI | GF117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 1 October 2012 (12 years ago) |
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 | 4096 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1126 MHz | Up to 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10400 Million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.24 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3500 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | Up to 14.4 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 data | No outputs |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 API |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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:
| Full HD | 137
+3325%
| 4−5
−3325%
|
| 4K | 68
+3300%
| 2−3
−3300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+2625%
|
4−5
−2625%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+3367%
|
6−7
−3367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+2625%
|
4−5
−2625%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+12600%
|
1−2
−12600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+3367%
|
6−7
−3367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+3767%
|
3−4
−3767%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+5233%
|
3−4
−5233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+1914%
|
7−8
−1914%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+3700%
|
3−4
−3700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1511%
|
9−10
−1511%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+558%
|
30−35
−558%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+2625%
|
4−5
−2625%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+12600%
|
1−2
−12600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+3367%
|
6−7
−3367%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+889%
|
27−30
−889%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+788%
|
16−18
−788%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+3767%
|
3−4
−3767%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+5233%
|
3−4
−5233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+1914%
|
7−8
−1914%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+3700%
|
3−4
−3700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130
+12200%
|
1−2
−12200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+4200%
|
2−3
−4200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1511%
|
9−10
−1511%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+2540%
|
5−6
−2540%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+558%
|
30−35
−558%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+12600%
|
1−2
−12600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+788%
|
16−18
−788%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+3767%
|
3−4
−3767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+1914%
|
7−8
−1914%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1511%
|
9−10
−1511%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+1380%
|
5−6
−1380%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+558%
|
30−35
−558%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 160−170
+5233%
|
3−4
−5233%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+3500%
|
7−8
−3500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1358%
|
12−14
−1358%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+6150%
|
4−5
−6150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+3033%
|
3−4
−3033%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+8600%
|
1−2
−8600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+3333%
|
3−4
−3333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 95−100
+4650%
|
2−3
−4650%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+420%
|
14−16
−420%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+3600%
|
6−7
−3600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+10500%
|
1−2
−10500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
This is how GTX 980 SLI Mobile and GT 625M compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 3325% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 3300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 12600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980 SLI Mobile surpassed GT 625M in all 44 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.91 | 1.11 |
| Recency | 22 September 2015 | 1 October 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 15 Watt |
GTX 980 SLI Mobile has a 2955% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
GT 625M, on the other hand, has 2100% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 625M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
