GeForce 8800 GTS 512 vs Radeon RX 470 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 470 Mobile with GeForce 8800 GTS 512, including specs and performance data.

RX 470 Mobile
2016, $550
8 GB GDDR5, 85 Watt
16.39
+1151%

470 Mobile outperforms 8800 GTS 512 by a whopping 1151% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3601062
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.660.04
Power efficiency14.810.75
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameEllesmereG92
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date4 August 2016 (9 years ago)11 December 2007 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549.99 $349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

RX 470 Mobile has 9050% better value for money than 8800 GTS 512.

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 cores2048128
Core clock speed926 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speed1074 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,700 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)85 Watt135 Watt
Texture fill rate137.541.60
Floating-point processing power4.399 TFLOPS0.416 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12864
L1 Cache512 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MB64 KB

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data254 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin

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 amount8 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz820 MHz
Memory bandwidth224.0 GB/s52.48 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputs2x DVI, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-1.1

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 90−95
+1243%
7−8
−1243%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 70−75
+1320%
5−6
−1320%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+1243%
7−8
−1243%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Escape from Tarkov 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+1250%
4−5
−1250%
Fortnite 90−95
+1200%
7−8
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1280%
5−6
−1280%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+1200%
4−5
−1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+1450%
4−5
−1450%
Valorant 130−140
+1220%
10−11
−1220%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 70−75
+1320%
5−6
−1320%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+1243%
7−8
−1243%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+1231%
16−18
−1231%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Dota 2 100−110
+1163%
8−9
−1163%
Escape from Tarkov 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+1250%
4−5
−1250%
Fortnite 90−95
+1200%
7−8
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1280%
5−6
−1280%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+1200%
4−5
−1200%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+1160%
5−6
−1160%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+1450%
4−5
−1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+1400%
3−4
−1400%
Valorant 130−140
+1220%
10−11
−1220%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 70−75
+1320%
5−6
−1320%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Dota 2 100−110
+1163%
8−9
−1163%
Escape from Tarkov 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+1250%
4−5
−1250%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1280%
5−6
−1280%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+1450%
4−5
−1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+1400%
3−4
−1400%
Valorant 130−140
+1220%
10−11
−1220%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 90−95
+1200%
7−8
−1200%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+1550%
2−3
−1550%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+1256%
9−10
−1256%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+1233%
12−14
−1233%
Valorant 160−170
+1267%
12−14
−1267%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+1467%
3−4
−1467%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1267%
3−4
−1267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+1167%
3−4
−1167%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Valorant 90−95
+1229%
7−8
−1229%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Dota 2 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.39 1.31
Recency 4 August 2016 11 December 2007
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 85 Watt 135 Watt

RX 470 Mobile has a 1151.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 58.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 470 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GTS 512 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 470 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 8800 GTS 512 is a desktop 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 RX 470 Mobile
Radeon RX 470 Mobile
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
GeForce 8800 GTS 512

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


4.1 33 votes

Rate Radeon RX 470 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 137 votes

Rate GeForce 8800 GTS 512 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 470 Mobile or GeForce 8800 GTS 512, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.