GeForce 8800 GS vs Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS

Place in the ranking	436	1139
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	24.37	0.56
Architecture	no data	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	no data	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	no data	31 January 2008 (17 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	96
Core clock speed	no data	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	4 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	105 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	26.40
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.264 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	12
TMUs	no data	48

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).

Interface	no data	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin

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	LPDDR5x	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	384 MB
Memory bus width	no data	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	8448 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	38.4 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

2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	no data	4.0
OpenGL	no data	3.3
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

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	35 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
1440p	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2

23
+2200%

1−2

−2200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Counter-Strike 2	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Forza Horizon 4	50 +1150%	4−5 −1150%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Valorant	40−45 +1267%	3−4 −1267%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Counter-Strike 2	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Dota 2	35 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
Fortnite	60−65 +1140%	5−6 −1140%
Forza Horizon 4	42 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Grand Theft Auto V	35 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +1250%	6−7 −1250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Valorant	40−45 +1267%	3−4 −1267%
World of Tanks	150−160 +1158%	12−14 −1158%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Counter-Strike 2	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
Forza Horizon 4	36 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +1250%	6−7 −1250%
Valorant	40−45 +1267%	3−4 −1267%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Grand Theft Auto V	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10	0−1
World of Tanks	75−80 +1167%	6−7 −1167%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Forza Horizon 4	28 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Valorant	24−27 +1200%	2−3 −1200%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7	0−1
Dota 2	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Metro Exodus	6−7	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	6−7	0−1
Far Cry 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Fortnite	10−12	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9	0−1
Valorant	10−12	0−1

This is how Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS and 8800 GS compete in popular games:

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is 1650% faster in 1080p
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is 1700% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.92	0.80
Chip lithography	4 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	105 Watt

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS has a 1140% higher aggregate performance score, a 1525% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

The Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GS in performance tests.

Be aware that Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is a notebook card while GeForce 8800 GS is a desktop one.

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