GeForce GT 610 vs 9800M GTX SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9800M GTX SLI with GeForce GT 610, including specs and performance data.

9800M GTX SLI
2008
1 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
3.07
+279%

9800M GTX SLI outperforms GT 610 by a whopping 279% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7581136
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency1.421.93
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameNB9E-GTXGF119
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 July 2008 (16 years ago)2 April 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$39.99

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 cores22448
Core clock speed500 MHz810 MHz
Number of transistors3016 Million292 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt29 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data102 °C
Texture fill rateno data6.480
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Heightno data2.7" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1024 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1.8 GB/s
Memory bandwidthno data14.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 Connectorsno dataDual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX1012 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.2
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA++

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

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Hitman 3 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+290%
10−11
−290%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Hitman 3 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+290%
10−11
−290%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Hitman 3 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+290%
10−11
−290%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.07 0.81
Recency 15 July 2008 2 April 2012
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 29 Watt

9800M GTX SLI has a 279% higher aggregate performance score.

GT 610, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 417.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 9800M GTX SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 610 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9800M GTX SLI is a notebook card while GeForce GT 610 is a desktop 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 9800M GTX SLI
GeForce 9800M GTX SLI
NVIDIA GeForce GT 610
GeForce GT 610

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.


3.3 8 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 1903 votes

Rate GeForce GT 610 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.