GeForce 9800M GT SLI vs Radeon R7 250X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7730 HD 7750 HD 7770 HD 8730 OEM HD 8740 OEM HD 8760 OEM R7 250E R7 250X R7 350 R7 350 640SP R7 450 OEM R9 255 OEM
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 R7 250X with GeForce 9800M GT SLI, including specs and performance data.

R7 250X
2014, $99
2 GB GDDR5, 80 Watt
5.42
+190%

R7 250X outperforms 9800M SLI by a whopping 190% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R7 250X R7 250X
9800M GT SLI 9800M GT SLI

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking654946
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.63no data
Power efficiency5.201.10
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code nameCape VerdeNB9E-GT2
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (11 years ago)15 July 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99 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 cores640192
Core clock speedno data500 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,500 million1508 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rate38.00no data
Floating-point processing power1.216 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs40no data
L1 Cache160 KBno data
L2 Cache256 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 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 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 amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 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+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1210
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

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+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%
Escape from Tarkov 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+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

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+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

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra

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

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

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

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 0−1 0−1
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

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 52 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 5.42 1.87
Recency 13 February 2014 15 July 2008
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 130 Watt

R7 250X has a 189.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 62.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 250X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GT SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250X is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 9800M GT 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 R7 250X
Radeon R7 250X
NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GT SLI
GeForce 9800M GT 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.

R7 250X Radeon R7 250X
vs
GTX 460 GeForce GTX 460
9800M GT SLI GeForce 9800M GT SLI
vs
HD 6850M Radeon HD 6850M
R7 250X Radeon R7 250X
vs
HD 6870 Radeon HD 6870
R9 280 AMD Radeon R9 280
vs
GeForce4 MX 4000 MX 4000
R9 280 AMD Radeon R9 280
vs
Pro WX 3200 Pro WX 3200
R9 280 AMD Radeon R9 280
vs
Quadro P2200 Quadro P2200
R9 280 AMD Radeon R9 280
vs
UHD Graphics 750 Graphics 750
R9 280 AMD Radeon R9 280
vs
Arc A350 Arc A350
R7 250X AMD Radeon R7 250X
vs
9400M (G) / ION (LE) GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE)
R7 250X AMD Radeon R7 250X
vs
GTX 260 216 GTX 260 Core 216
R7 250X AMD Radeon R7 250X
vs
GeForce 9400M GeForce 9400M
R7 250X AMD Radeon R7 250X
vs
RX 570G RX 570G
R7 250X AMD Radeon R7 250X
vs
RTX 8100 RTX 8100

Community ratings

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

3.9 178 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 250X or GeForce 9800M GT SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.