GeForce 9800M GTS vs Radeon RX Vega 64

Place in the ranking	131	1129
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	21.20	no data
Power efficiency	8.63	0.85
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Vega 10	G94
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	7 August 2017 (7 years ago)	29 July 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	4096	64
Core clock speed	1247 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1546 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	12,500 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	395.8	19.20
Floating-point processing power	12.66 TFLOPS	0.192 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	240
ROPs	64	16
TMUs	256	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
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	279 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	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	HBM2	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	945 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	483.8 GB/s	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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.125	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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

RX Vega 64 35.32
+3914%

9800M GTS 0.88

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.

RX Vega 64 14224
+3896%

9800M GTS 356

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.

RX Vega 64 55262
+1261%

9800M GTS 4060

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	118 +5800%	2−3 −5800%
1440p	80 +7900%	1−2 −7900%
4K	52 +5100%	1−2 −5100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.23	no data
1440p	6.24	no data
4K	9.60	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +986%	7−8 −986%
Cyberpunk 2077	75−80 +1875%	4−5 −1875%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	82 +4000%	2−3 −4000%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +986%	7−8 −986%
Cyberpunk 2077	34 +750%	4−5 −750%
Forza Horizon 4	202 +2786%	7−8 −2786%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 +4650%	2−3 −4650%
Metro Exodus	105 +5150%	2−3 −5150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	116 +1833%	6−7 −1833%
Valorant	182 +4450%	4−5 −4450%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	174 +4250%	4−5 −4250%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +986%	7−8 −986%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 +575%	4−5 −575%
Dota 2	50 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Far Cry 5	62 +589%	9−10 −589%
Fortnite	123 +4000%	3−4 −4000%
Forza Horizon 4	164 +2243%	7−8 −2243%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 +4650%	2−3 −4650%
Grand Theft Auto V	110−120 +5750%	2−3 −5750%
Metro Exodus	79 +7800%	1−2 −7800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	190−200 +1682%	10−12 −1682%
Red Dead Redemption 2	57 +850%	6−7 −850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	130−140 +2067%	6−7 −2067%
Valorant	92 +4500%	2−3 −4500%
World of Tanks	270−280 +1168%	21−24 −1168%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	72 +7100%	1−2 −7100%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +986%	7−8 −986%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 +500%	4−5 −500%
Dota 2	138 +4500%	3−4 −4500%
Far Cry 5	95−100 +956%	9−10 −956%
Forza Horizon 4	143 +1943%	7−8 −1943%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 +4650%	2−3 −4650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	190−200 +1682%	10−12 −1682%
Valorant	140 +4567%	3−4 −4567%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	65−70 +6700%	1−2 −6700%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 +6700%	1−2 −6700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +3140%	5−6 −3140%
Red Dead Redemption 2	37	0−1
World of Tanks	230−240 +5775%	4−5 −5775%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +6900%	1−2 −6900%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +400%	3−4 −400%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +2280%	5−6 −2280%
Forza Horizon 4	100 +4900%	2−3 −4900%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +6000%	1−2 −6000%
Metro Exodus	79 +7800%	1−2 −7800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +1475%	4−5 −1475%
Valorant	95 +1483%	6−7 −1483%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Dota 2	70−75 +373%	14−16 −373%
Grand Theft Auto V	70−75 +373%	14−16 −373%
Metro Exodus	46 +4500%	1−2 −4500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +5850%	2−3 −5850%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +373%	14−16 −373%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	47 +4600%	1−2 −4600%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +250%	2−3 −250%
Dota 2	96 +540%	14−16 −540%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Fortnite	50 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35	0−1
Valorant	49 +4800%	1−2 −4800%

This is how RX Vega 64 and 9800M GTS compete in popular games:

RX Vega 64 is 5800% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 64 is 7900% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 64 is 5100% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 64 is 5850% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RX Vega 64 surpassed 9800M GTS in all 36 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	35.32	0.88
Recency	7 August 2017	29 July 2008
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	75 Watt

RX Vega 64 has a 3913.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

9800M GTS, on the other hand, has 293.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTS in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 64 is a desktop card while GeForce 9800M GTS is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.