GeForce GTX 770M SLI vs GTX 980M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980M SLI and GeForce GTX 770M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 980M SLI outperforms GTX 770M SLI by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 233 | 403 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.51 | 5.85 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (10 years ago) | 30 May 2013 (11 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 | 3072 | 1920 |
| Core clock speed | 1038 MHz | 811 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1127 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2x 5200 Million | 2x 2540 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 150 Watt |
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 | large |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 8 GB | 2x 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 2x 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 4000 MHz |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11 |
| Vulkan | + | - |
| 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 135
+108%
| 65−70
−108%
|
| Full HD | 110
+100%
| 55−60
−100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+78.8%
|
50−55
−78.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+95%
|
40−45
−95%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+65.7%
|
70−75
−65.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+82.4%
|
50−55
−82.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+106%
|
30−35
−106%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+109%
|
40−45
−109%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+52.8%
|
100−110
−52.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+78.8%
|
50−55
−78.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+48%
|
170−180
−48%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+48.1%
|
80−85
−48.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+95%
|
40−45
−95%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+65.7%
|
70−75
−65.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+82.4%
|
50−55
−82.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+106%
|
30−35
−106%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+84.8%
|
45−50
−84.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+113%
|
24−27
−113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+109%
|
40−45
−109%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+116%
|
30−35
−116%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+52.8%
|
100−110
−52.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+78.8%
|
50−55
−78.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+48.1%
|
80−85
−48.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+95%
|
40−45
−95%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+82.4%
|
50−55
−82.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+106%
|
30−35
−106%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+109%
|
40−45
−109%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+116%
|
30−35
−116%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+52.8%
|
100−110
−52.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+65.7%
|
70−75
−65.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+82.2%
|
90−95
−82.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+133%
|
18−20
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+108%
|
80−85
−108%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+55.8%
|
120−130
−55.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+103%
|
30−35
−103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+107%
|
27−30
−107%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+105%
|
18−20
−105%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+87%
|
21−24
−87%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+127%
|
14−16
−127%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+111%
|
60−65
−111%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+79.1%
|
40−45
−79.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+118%
|
10−12
−118%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+127%
|
10−12
−127%
|
This is how GTX 980M SLI and GTX 770M SLI compete in popular games:
- GTX 980M SLI is 108% faster in 900p
- GTX 980M SLI is 100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980M SLI is 150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980M SLI surpassed GTX 770M SLI in all 67 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.82 | 12.80 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 30 May 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTX 980M SLI has a 93.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
GTX 770M SLI, on the other hand, has 33.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 770M 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.
