GeForce 9800 GT vs Radeon Pro 560X

Place in the ranking	464	1042
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.07
Power efficiency	8.79	0.68
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Polaris 21	G92
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	16 July 2018 (6 years ago)	21 July 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$160

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1024	112
Core clock speed	1004 MHz	600 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	64.26	33.60
Floating-point processing power	2.056 TFLOPS	0.336 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	64	56

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	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Height	no data	1-slot
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin
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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1270 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	81.28 GB/s	57.6 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 outputs	HDTVDual Link DVI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro 560X 9.56
+671%

9800 GT 1.24

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.

Pro 560X 3677
+669%

9800 GT 478

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	38 +850%	4−5 −850%
1440p	41 +720%	5−6 −720%
4K	16 +700%	2−3 −700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	40.00
1440p	no data	32.00
4K	no data	80.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Elden Ring	27−30 +800%	3−4 −800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +675%	4−5 −675%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +850%	4−5 −850%
Metro Exodus	36 +800%	4−5 −800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	36 +800%	4−5 −800%
Valorant	46 +820%	5−6 −820%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	44 +780%	5−6 −780%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Dota 2	46 +820%	5−6 −820%
Elden Ring	27−30 +800%	3−4 −800%
Far Cry 5	42 +740%	5−6 −740%
Fortnite	55−60 +700%	7−8 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +850%	4−5 −850%
Grand Theft Auto V	33 +725%	4−5 −725%
Metro Exodus	23 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	34 +750%	4−5 −750%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Valorant	21 +950%	2−3 −950%
World of Tanks	86 +760%	10−11 −760%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	31 +675%	4−5 −675%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Dota 2	69 +763%	8−9 −763%
Far Cry 5	37 +825%	4−5 −825%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +850%	4−5 −850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +722%	9−10 −722%
Valorant	26 +767%	3−4 −767%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Elden Ring	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +820%	5−6 −820%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
World of Tanks	57 +714%	7−8 −714%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8	0−1
Far Cry 5	24 +700%	3−4 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Valorant	19 +850%	2−3 −850%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5	0−1
Dota 2	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Elden Ring	6−7	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Metro Exodus	7	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	26 +767%	3−4 −767%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
World of Tanks	30 +900%	3−4 −900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9 +800%	1−2 −800%
Counter-Strike 2	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Far Cry 5	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Fortnite	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Valorant	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

This is how Pro 560X and 9800 GT compete in popular games:

Pro 560X is 850% faster in 1080p
Pro 560X is 720% faster in 1440p
Pro 560X is 700% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.56	1.24
Recency	16 July 2018	21 July 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	105 Watt

Pro 560X has a 671% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 560X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 9800 GT is a desktop one.

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