GeForce 9800 GTX+ vs Quadro K2100M

Place in the ranking	724	1035
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.63	0.05
Power efficiency	4.45	0.63
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GK106	G92B
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	16 January 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$84.95	$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K2100M has 1160% better value for money than 9800 GTX+.

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	576	128
Core clock speed	667 MHz	738 MHz
Number of transistors	2,540 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	141 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	32.02	47.23
Floating-point processing power	0.7684 TFLOPS	0.47 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	48	64

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	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	2x 6-pin
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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	752 MHz	1100 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48.0 GB/s	70.4 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	No outputs	HDTVDual Link DVI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Display Port	1.2	no data
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.

Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	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.

K2100M 3.52
+175%

9800 GTX+ 1.28

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.

K2100M 1357
+175%

9800 GTX+ 494

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

23
+188%

8−9

−188%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.69

28.63

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Hitman 3	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +193%	14−16 −193%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Hitman 3	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	25 +178%	9−10 −178%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +193%	14−16 −193%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Hitman 3	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +193%	14−16 −193%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+200%

3−4

−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+250%

2−3

−250%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	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
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	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%

This is how K2100M and 9800 GTX+ compete in popular games:

K2100M is 188% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.52	1.28
Recency	23 July 2013	16 January 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	141 Watt

K2100M has a 175% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 156.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800 GTX+ in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2100M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 9800 GTX+ is a desktop one.

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