Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire vs GeForce GTX 980M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980M and Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 980M outperforms HD 8970M Crossfire by a minimal 3% 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 | 331 | 336 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.22 | 6.42 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Neptune CF |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (10 years ago) | 1 May 2012 (13 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 | 1536 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1038 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1127 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 200 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 51.84 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.659 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 96 | no data |
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 | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 2x 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 4800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Ansel | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| 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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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 | 173
+8.1%
| 160−170
−8.1%
|
| Full HD | 72
+4.3%
| 69
−4.3%
|
| 1440p | 36
+20%
| 30−35
−20%
|
| 4K | 28
+3.7%
| 27−30
−3.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+3%
|
95−100
−3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+2.7%
|
35−40
−2.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
+2.8%
|
35−40
−2.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 82
+12.3%
|
70−75
−12.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+3%
|
95−100
−3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+2.7%
|
35−40
−2.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 58
+1.8%
|
55−60
−1.8%
|
| Fortnite | 178
+89.4%
|
90−95
−89.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
+4.2%
|
70−75
−4.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+3.7%
|
50−55
−3.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85
+30.8%
|
65−70
−30.8%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
+2.8%
|
35−40
−2.8%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+2.2%
|
130−140
−2.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 68
−7.4%
|
70−75
+7.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+3%
|
95−100
−3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230
+79.7%
|
128
−79.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+2.7%
|
35−40
−2.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+1%
|
100−110
−1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
−7.5%
|
55−60
+7.5%
|
| Fortnite | 86
−9.3%
|
90−95
+9.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 68
−4.4%
|
70−75
+4.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+3.7%
|
50−55
−3.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
−8.3%
|
65−70
+8.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
−19.4%
|
35−40
+19.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 79
+21.5%
|
65−70
−21.5%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
+2.8%
|
35−40
−2.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 61
+27.1%
|
45−50
−27.1%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+2.2%
|
130−140
−2.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 61
−19.7%
|
70−75
+19.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+2.7%
|
35−40
−2.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+1%
|
100−110
−1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
−14%
|
55−60
+14%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 47
−51.1%
|
70−75
+51.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
−32.7%
|
65−70
+32.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
+2.8%
|
35−40
−2.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
−45.5%
|
45−50
+45.5%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+2.2%
|
130−140
−2.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 63
−49.2%
|
90−95
+49.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+2.4%
|
120−130
−2.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+3.4%
|
27−30
−3.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
−15.8%
|
21−24
+15.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+1.2%
|
160−170
−1.2%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+1.8%
|
160−170
−1.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45
−8.9%
|
45−50
+8.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
−11.8%
|
35−40
+11.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 39
−10.3%
|
40−45
+10.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 21−24
+4.5%
|
21−24
−4.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40
+2.6%
|
35−40
−2.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+28.1%
|
30−35
−28.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
−13.6%
|
24−27
+13.6%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+4.1%
|
95−100
−4.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
−13%
|
24−27
+13%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+1.6%
|
60−65
−1.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 19
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
This is how GTX 980M and HD 8970M Crossfire compete in popular games:
- GTX 980M is 8% faster in 900p
- GTX 980M is 4% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980M is 20% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980M is 4% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 980M is 89% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 8970M Crossfire is 51% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 980M is ahead in 40 tests (62%)
- HD 8970M Crossfire is ahead in 21 tests (32%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.44 | 16.94 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 1 May 2012 |
GTX 980M has a 3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 980M and Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
