ATI Radeon X800 GT vs GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile with Radeon X800 GT, including specs and performance data.
980 SLI Mobile outperforms X800 by a whopping 18026% 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 | 148 | 1435 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.40 | 0.38 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | R400 (2004−2008) |
| GPU code name | N16E-GXX SLI | R480 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 1 November 2005 (19 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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1126 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10400 Million | 160 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 5.700 |
| ROPs | no data | 12 |
| TMUs | no data | 12 |
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 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 8 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3500 MHz | 493 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 31.55 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 9.0b (9_2) |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/A |
| 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.
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 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 68 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+20300%
|
1−2
−20300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 85−90 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+20300%
|
1−2
−20300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 160−170 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 210−220
+21700%
|
1−2
−21700%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+20300%
|
1−2
−20300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+27700%
|
1−2
−27700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 140−150 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 160−170 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 210−220
+21700%
|
1−2
−21700%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 140−150 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 210−220
+21700%
|
1−2
−21700%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 160−170 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+25500%
|
1−2
−25500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 250−260
+24900%
|
1−2
−24900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 95−100 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 220−230
+22300%
|
1−2
−22300%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.44 | 0.19 |
| Recency | 22 September 2015 | 1 November 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 40 Watt |
GTX 980 SLI Mobile has a 18026.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
ATI X800 GT, on the other hand, has 725% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X800 GT in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon X800 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.
