GeForce 8800M GTX SLI vs Radeon HD 8670D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8670D with GeForce 8800M GTX SLI, including specs and performance data.
8800M GTX SLI outperforms HD 8670D by an impressive 51% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1027 | 892 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.94 | 1.09 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | NB8E-GTX |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 March 2013 (11 years ago) | 19 November 2007 (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 | 384 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 844 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 1508 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.80 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | IGP | no data |
| Width | IGP | no data |
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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| 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 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 10 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
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 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.
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 | 18
−50%
| 27−30
+50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−14.7%
|
35−40
+14.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−34.5%
|
35−40
+34.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−14.7%
|
35−40
+14.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−14.7%
|
35−40
+14.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 8670D and 8800M GTX SLI compete in popular games:
- 8800M GTX SLI is 50% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8670D is 150% faster.
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the 8800M GTX SLI is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8670D is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- 8800M GTX SLI is ahead in 39 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (23%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.18 | 1.78 |
| Recency | 12 March 2013 | 19 November 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
HD 8670D has an age advantage of 5 years, a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 30% lower power consumption.
8800M GTX SLI, on the other hand, has a 50.8% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce 8800M GTX SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8670D in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8670D is a desktop card while GeForce 8800M GTX SLI is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
