Radeon PRO W7700 vs GeForce 8800 GTS 112

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated61
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data55.86
Power efficiencyno data18.13
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameG80Navi 32
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date19 November 2007 (17 years ago)13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

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 cores1123072
Core clock speed500 MHz1900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2600 MHz
Number of transistors681 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt190 Watt
Texture fill rate28.00499.2
Floating-point processing power0.2688 TFLOPS31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs2096
TMUs28192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mm241 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 8-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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount640 MB16 GB
Memory bus width320 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s576.0 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video4x DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 19 November 2007 13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount 640 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 190 Watt

8800 GTS 112 has 26.7% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 15 years, a 2460% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1700% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 8800 GTS Core 112 and Radeon PRO W7700. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 8800 GTS Core 112 is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.


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

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.


NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS Core 112
GeForce 8800 GTS Core 112
AMD Radeon PRO W7700
Radeon PRO W7700

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


1.1 308 votes

Rate GeForce 8800 GTS Core 112 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.