GeForce 9800M GS vs Radeon RX 480
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 480 with GeForce 9800M GS, including specs and performance data.
RX 480 outperforms 9800M GS by a whopping 1561% 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 | 305 | 1086 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.68 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.46 | 1.57 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | G94 |
| GCN generation | 4th Gen | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 29 June 2016 (9 years ago) | 1 November 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 2304 | 64 |
| Compute units | 36 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1120 MHz | 530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1266 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 182.3 | 16.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.834 TFLOPS | 0.1696 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 254 |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 144 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 64 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 size | no data | large |
| Bus support | n/a | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 240 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 51.2 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | 2.0 | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | 1.4HDR | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | n/a | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | n/a | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | n/a | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | n/a | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | n/a | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 77
+1825%
| 4−5
−1825%
|
| 1440p | 51
+1600%
| 3−4
−1600%
|
| 4K | 36
+1700%
| 2−3
−1700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.97 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.49 | no data |
| 4K | 6.36 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+1586%
|
7−8
−1586%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+1586%
|
7−8
−1586%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+2633%
|
3−4
−2633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
| Fortnite | 207
+6800%
|
3−4
−6800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100
+1150%
|
8−9
−1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+789%
|
9−10
−789%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+361%
|
30−35
−361%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+1586%
|
7−8
−1586%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 285
+883%
|
27−30
−883%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+613%
|
16−18
−613%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+2633%
|
3−4
−2633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
| Fortnite | 79
+2533%
|
3−4
−2533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+1063%
|
8−9
−1063%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 78 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 41
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+789%
|
9−10
−789%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 78
+1014%
|
7−8
−1014%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+361%
|
30−35
−361%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+613%
|
16−18
−613%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+2633%
|
3−4
−2633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+863%
|
8−9
−863%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+529%
|
7−8
−529%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+361%
|
30−35
−361%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65
+2067%
|
3−4
−2067%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+1775%
|
8−9
−1775%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1231%
|
12−14
−1231%
|
| Valorant | 241
+7933%
|
3−4
−7933%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1867%
|
3−4
−1867%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+1633%
|
3−4
−1633%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 39
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Valorant | 120
+1900%
|
6−7
−1900%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 88
+8700%
|
1−2
−8700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
This is how RX 480 and 9800M GS compete in popular games:
- RX 480 is 1825% faster in 1080p
- RX 480 is 1600% faster in 1440p
- RX 480 is 1700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 480 is 8700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 480 surpassed 9800M GS in all 47 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.43 | 1.23 |
| Recency | 29 June 2016 | 1 November 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 60 Watt |
RX 480 has a 1561% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
9800M GS, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GS in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 480 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.
