GeForce 8800M GTS vs ATI Radeon HD 5770

Place in the ranking	663	1103
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.80	no data
Power efficiency	2.83	1.37
Architecture	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Juniper	G92
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	13 October 2009 (15 years ago)	1 November 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$159	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 cores	800	64
Core clock speed	850 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	1,040 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	108 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	34.00	16.00
Floating-point processing power	1.36 TFLOPS	0.16 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	40	32

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-HE
Length	208 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	4800 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	76.8 GB/s	51.2 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.0	4.0
OpenGL	4.4	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

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.

ATI HD 5770 4.42
+346%

8800M GTS 0.99

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.

ATI HD 5770 1705
+346%

8800M GTS 382

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

ATI HD 5770 11699
+358%

8800M GTS 2552

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	24 +380%	5−6 −380%
Full HD	50 +400%	10−12 −400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.18

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9
+167%

3−4

−167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Battlefield 5	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%
Hitman 3	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +123%	12−14 −123%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +37.5%	30−35 −37.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Battlefield 5	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%
Hitman 3	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +123%	12−14 −123%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +37.5%	30−35 −37.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%
Hitman 3	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +123%	12−14 −123%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +37.5%	30−35 −37.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+1100%

1−2

−1100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Hitman 3	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +600%	4−5 −600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+167%

3−4

−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

This is how ATI HD 5770 and 8800M GTS compete in popular games:

ATI HD 5770 is 380% faster in 900p
ATI HD 5770 is 400% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the ATI HD 5770 is 1100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, ATI HD 5770 surpassed 8800M GTS in all 43 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.42	0.99
Recency	13 October 2009	1 November 2007
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	108 Watt	50 Watt

ATI HD 5770 has a 346.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

8800M GTS, on the other hand, has 116% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 5770 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800M GTS in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 5770 is a desktop card while GeForce 8800M GTS is a notebook one.

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