GeForce 9800M GS vs Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with GeForce 9800M GS, including specs and performance data.
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms 9800M GS by an impressive 98% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 843 | 1051 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.61 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | G94 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 November 2008 (16 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 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 530 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 16.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1696 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 254 |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 51.2 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 data | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| 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.
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 | 14
+100%
| 7−8
−100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+30.3%
|
30−35
−30.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+52.9%
|
16−18
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+30.3%
|
30−35
−30.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+52.9%
|
16−18
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+30.3%
|
30−35
−30.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and 9800M GS compete in popular games:
- R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 100% 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 R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 43 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.46 | 1.24 |
| Recency | 14 January 2014 | 1 November 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 98.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GS in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 9800M GS 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.
