GeForce 8800 GT vs GTS 360M

Place in the ranking	934	1047
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.02
Power efficiency	3.10	0.68
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GT215	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	7 January 2010 (14 years ago)	29 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$349

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	96	112
Core clock speed	550 MHz	600 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	38 Watt	105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	17.60	33.60
Floating-point processing power	0.2757 TFLOPS	0.336 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	413	no data
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	32	56

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	no data
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-II	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Height	no data	Single Slot
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin
SLI options	+	2-way
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	no data

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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 2000 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	57.6 GB/s	57.6 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	Single Link DVILVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPortVGA	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)	no data	128bit
Power management	8.0	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	4.1	4.0
OpenGL	2.1	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	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.

GTS 360M 1.69
+38.5%

8800 GT 1.22

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.

GTS 360M 653
+38.6%

8800 GT 471

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:

900p	18 +50%	12−14 −50%
Full HD	23 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

21.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Hitman 3	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +41.7%	24−27 −41.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Hitman 3	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +41.7%	24−27 −41.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Hitman 3	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +41.7%	24−27 −41.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

This is how GTS 360M and 8800 GT compete in popular games:

GTS 360M is 50% faster in 900p
GTS 360M is 44% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.69	1.22
Recency	7 January 2010	29 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	38 Watt	105 Watt

GTS 360M has a 38.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 176.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTS 360M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 360M is a notebook card while GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop one.

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