Radeon R6 M340DX vs GeForce 8800M GTX SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8800M GTX SLI and Radeon R6 M340DX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R6 M340DX outperforms 8800M GTX SLI by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 891 | 801 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.09 | no data |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | NB8E-GTX | Jet |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 19 November 2007 (17 years ago) | 12 December 2015 (9 years ago) |
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 | 192 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 955 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1030 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.791 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | IGP |
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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| 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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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 | 7−8
−42.9%
| 10
+42.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−27.5%
|
50−55
+27.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3
−133%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−46.2%
|
18−20
+46.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how 8800M GTX SLI and R6 M340DX compete in popular games:
- R6 M340DX is 43% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 8800M GTX SLI is 133% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R6 M340DX is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 8800M GTX SLI is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
- R6 M340DX is ahead in 51 test (91%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.07 | 2.87 |
| Recency | 19 November 2007 | 12 December 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
R6 M340DX has a 38.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R6 M340DX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800M GTX SLI in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
