Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs GeForce 9800 GTX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9800 GTX with Qualcomm Adreno 680, including specs and performance data.

9800 GTX
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 140 Watt
2.00

Qualcomm Adreno 680 outperforms 9800 GTX by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking898860
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency0.9821.83
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)no data
GPU code nameG92no data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date28 March 2008 (16 years ago)6 December 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 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 cores128no data
Core clock speed675 MHzno data
Number of transistors754 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt7 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate43.20no data
Floating-point processing power0.4321 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs64no 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).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount512 MBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1100 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth70.4 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsHDTVDual Link DVIno data
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMIVia Adapter-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/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.

9800 GTX 2.00
Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.22
+11%

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.

9800 GTX 769
Qualcomm Adreno 680 854
+11.1%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Elden Ring 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Elden Ring 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
World of Tanks 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 52 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.00 2.22
Recency 28 March 2008 6 December 2018
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 7 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 11% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 1900% lower power consumption.

The Qualcomm Adreno 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800 GTX in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9800 GTX is a desktop card while Qualcomm Adreno 680 is a notebook 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 9800 GTX
GeForce 9800 GTX
Qualcomm Adreno 680
Adreno 680

Other comparisons

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.


3.5 188 votes

Rate GeForce 9800 GTX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 38 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 680 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.