GeForce 8800 GT vs Radeon 840M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 840M with GeForce 8800 GT, including specs and performance data.

Radeon 840M
2024
9.23
+739%

840M outperforms 8800 GT by a whopping 739% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking4901105
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.03
Power efficiencyno data0.67
ArchitectureRDNA 3+ (2024)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameKrackan PointG92
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date2 June 2024 (1 year 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.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores256112
Core clock speedno data600 MHz
Boost clock speed2900 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data754 million
Manufacturing process technology4 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rateno data33.60
Floating-point processing powerno data0.336 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data56

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Heightno dataSingle Slot
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speed7500 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data57.6 GB/s
Shared memory+-
Resizable BAR+-

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 Connectorsno dataDual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor supportno data+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

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 data128bit

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXno data11.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno data1.1
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.

Radeon 840M 9.23
+739%
8800 GT 1.10

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.

Radeon 840M 3868
+741%
8800 GT 460

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 HD28
+833%
3−4
−833%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data116.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 84
+740%
10−11
−740%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Sons of the Forest 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Counter-Strike 2 68
+750%
8−9
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Fortnite 55−60
+850%
6−7
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+925%
4−5
−925%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+750%
4−5
−750%
Sons of the Forest 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Valorant 90−95
+810%
10−11
−810%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Counter-Strike 2 15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+794%
16−18
−794%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Fortnite 55−60
+850%
6−7
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+925%
4−5
−925%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Grand Theft Auto V 32
+967%
3−4
−967%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+750%
4−5
−750%
Sons of the Forest 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Valorant 90−95
+810%
10−11
−810%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+925%
4−5
−925%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+750%
4−5
−750%
Sons of the Forest 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+850%
6−7
−850%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+800%
8−9
−800%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Valorant 100−110
+767%
12−14
−767%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Sons of the Forest 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%

4K
High Preset

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%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Sons of the Forest 6−7 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

This is how Radeon 840M and 8800 GT compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 840M is 833% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.23 1.10
Recency 2 June 2024 29 October 2007
Chip lithography 4 nm 65 nm

Radeon 840M has a 739.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 840M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 840M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon 840M
Radeon 840M
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
GeForce 8800 GT

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.5 11 votes

Rate Radeon 840M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 644 votes

Rate GeForce 8800 GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon 840M or GeForce 8800 GT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.