GeForce 9800M GTS SLI vs Radeon HD 7950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7870 XT HD 7950 HD 7950 Boost HD 7950 Mac Edition HD 7950 Monica BIOS 1 HD 7950 Monica BIOS 2 HD 7970 HD 7970 GHz Edition HD 8950 OEM HD 8970 OEM R9 280 R9 280X
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
9800M GT 9800M GTS 9800M GT SLI 9800M GTS SLI 9800M GTX 9800M GTX SLI

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 7950 with GeForce 9800M GTS SLI, including specs and performance data.

HD 7950
2012
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
10.77
+537%

HD 7950 outperforms 9800M GTS SLI by a whopping 537% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
HD 7950 HD 7950
9800M GTS SLI 9800M GTS SLI

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking447954
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.06no data
Power efficiency4.330.91
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code nameTahitiNB9E-GT
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date31 January 2012 (13 years ago)15 July 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

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 cores1792128
Compute units28no data
Core clock speedno data600 MHz
Boost clock speed1250 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,313 million1508 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate89.60no data
Floating-point processing power2.867 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs112no data
L1 Cache448 KBno data
L2 Cache768 KBno 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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount3 GB512 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/sno data
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortno data
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
ZeroCore+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1110
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
CUDA-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 10.77 1.69
Recency 31 January 2012 15 July 2008
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 150 Watt

HD 7950 has a 537.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

9800M GTS SLI, on the other hand, has 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 7950 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTS SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7950 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 9800M GTS SLI is a notebook 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 HD 7950
Radeon HD 7950
NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTS SLI
GeForce 9800M GTS SLI
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

HD 7950 Radeon HD 7950
vs
R9 370 Radeon R9 370
9800M GTS SLI GeForce 9800M GTS SLI
vs
R7 (Bristol Ridge) Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)
HD 7950 Radeon HD 7950
vs
GTX 760 GeForce GTX 760
GTX 760 Ti OEM Rebrand GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM Rebrand
vs
HD 7790 HD 7790
9700M GT GeForce 9700M GT
vs
HD 7870 XT HD 7870 XT
FirePro R5000 FirePro R5000
vs
HD 7870 XT HD 7870 XT
P106-090 P106 090
vs
HD 7750 HD 7750
RTX A4 Mobile RTX A4 Mobile
vs
HD 7750 HD 7750
9800M GS GeForce 9800M GS
vs
HD 7950 HD 7950
9300M GS GeForce 9300M GS
vs
HD 7950 HD 7950
GT 520 GeForce GT 520
vs
HD 7950 HD 7950
9100M G mGPU GeForce 9100M G mGPU AMD
vs
HD 7950 HD 7950
RX 7800 XT Radeon RX 7800 XT
vs
HD 7950 HD 7950

Community ratings

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

4 434 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 8 votes

Rate GeForce 9800M GTS SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 7950 or GeForce 9800M GTS SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.