NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M and NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 11 month(s) later
- 2.5x more pipelines: 640 vs 2x 128
- Around 81% better floating-point performance: 1,389 gflops vs 2x 384.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 2.6x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 197 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 2x 512 MB
- 5x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3062 vs 613
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3340 vs 3238
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3340 vs 3238
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 10 March 2014 vs 18 March 2008 |
Pipelines | 640 vs 2x 128 |
Floating-point performance | 1,389 gflops vs 2x 384.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 197 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 2x 512 MB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3062 vs 613 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 vs 3238 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 vs 3238 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
- Around 88% higher core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 797 MHz
- Around 77% higher texture fill rate: 76.8 billion / sec vs 43.4 GTexel / s
- Around 16% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 262 vs 226
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 797 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 76.8 billion / sec vs 43.4 GTexel / s |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 262 vs 226 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3062 | 613 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 226 | 262 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10438 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.828 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 210.585 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.427 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 28.662 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 162.83 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4938 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3684 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 | 3238 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4938 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3684 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 | 3238 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1151 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Tesla |
Code name | GK104 | G92 |
Launch date | 10 March 2014 | 18 March 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 878 | 881 |
Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 915 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 797 MHz | 1500 MHz |
CUDA cores | 1152 or 640 | 256 (128 per GPU) |
Floating-point performance | 1,389 gflops | 2x 384.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 640 | 2x 128 |
Texture fill rate | 43.4 GTexel / s | 76.8 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 197 Watt |
Transistor count | 3,540 million | 754 million |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | ||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, HDMIDual Link DVI |
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
HDCP content protection | ||
HDMI | ||
LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | |
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | ||
VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 6-pin & 8-pin |
Length | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | |
SLI options | Quad | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2x 512 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 80.0 GB / s | 128 (64 per GPU) |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 512 Bit |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | |
Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
Ansel | ||
BatteryBoost | ||
CUDA | ||
Direct Compute | ||
FXAA | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
GPU Boost | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA | ||
3D Vision |