GeForce 9800M GT vs Radeon R5 (Carrizo)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Carrizo) and GeForce 9800M GT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 (Carrizo) outperforms 9800M GT by an impressive 86% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 930 | 1119 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.60 | 1.04 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Carrizo | G92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 29 July 2008 (16 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 | 256 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-35 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.24 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 360 |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| 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
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+19.4%
|
30−35
−19.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+56.5%
|
21−24
−56.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+19.4%
|
30−35
−19.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+19.4%
|
30−35
−19.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R5 (Carrizo) is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Carrizo) is ahead in 39 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.84 | 0.99 |
| Recency | 4 June 2015 | 29 July 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 65 Watt |
R5 (Carrizo) has a 85.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 441.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GT 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.
