ATI Radeon 9800 PRO vs RX 580 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 580 Mobile with Radeon 9800 PRO, including specs and performance data.
580 Mobile outperforms 9800 PRO by a whopping 12786% 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 | 337 | 1485 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.13 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.91 | 0.23 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Rage 8 (2002−2007) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 20 | R350 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 March 2003 (22 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $301.69 | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 580 Mobile and ATI 9800 PRO have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 380 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1077 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 117 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 47 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 155.1 | 3.040 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.963 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 144 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no 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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | AGP 8x |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x Molex |
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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 340 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 21.76 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 9.0 (9_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 30 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.92 | no data |
| 4K | 10.06 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 183
+18200%
|
1−2
−18200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 69 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 140−150
+14000%
|
1−2
−14000%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+22500%
|
1−2
−22500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 76 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 81 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 57 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 140−150
+14000%
|
1−2
−14000%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 69 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 140−150
+14000%
|
1−2
−14000%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 60 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+13300%
|
1−2
−13300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+16800%
|
1−2
−16800%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+17400%
|
1−2
−17400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−110 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.04 | 0.14 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 1 March 2003 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 47 Watt |
RX 580 Mobile has a 12785.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 971.4% more advanced lithography process.
ATI 9800 PRO, on the other hand, has 112.8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 580 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9800 PRO in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 580 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon 9800 PRO is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
