NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 and NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+ 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 - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/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 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070
- Videocard is newer: launch date 16 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 26% higher core clock speed: 2310 MHz vs 1836 MHz
- 10173.7x more texture fill rate: 480.2 GTexel/s vs 47.2 billion / sec
- 46x more pipelines: 5888 vs 128
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 4 nm vs 55 nm
- 24x more maximum memory size: 12 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 19% higher memory clock speed: 1313 MHz, 21 Gbps effective vs 1100 MHz
- 14x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 1166 vs 83
- 54.6x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 26959 vs 494
- 7.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 417.133 vs 54.055
- 11.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 55.476 vs 4.986
- 15.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 245.639 vs 15.56
- 22.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 2459.317 vs 108.412
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 2023 vs 16 January 2009 |
| Core clock speed | 2310 MHz vs 1836 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 480.2 GTexel/s vs 47.2 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 5888 vs 128 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm vs 55 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 12 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1313 MHz, 21 Gbps effective vs 1100 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 1166 vs 83 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 26959 vs 494 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 417.133 vs 54.055 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 55.476 vs 4.986 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 245.639 vs 15.56 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2459.317 vs 108.412 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+
- 2x lower typical power consumption: 141 Watt vs 285 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 141 Watt vs 285 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+ |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 1166 | 83 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 26959 | 494 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 168049 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3854 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 417.133 | 54.055 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 55.476 | 4.986 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 245.639 | 15.56 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2459.317 | 108.412 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3309 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3309 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+ | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Tesla |
| Code name | AD104 | G92B |
| Launch date | 2023 | 16 January 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 35 | 1305 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | |
| Type | Desktop | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 2610 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 2310 MHz | 1836 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 55 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 480.2 GFLOPS (1:64) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 30.74 TFLOPS (1:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 30.74 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 5888 | 128 |
| Pixel fill rate | 167.0 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 480.2 GTexel/s | 47.2 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 285 Watt | 141 Watt |
| Transistor count | 35800 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 128 | |
| Floating-point performance | 470.0 gflops | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Form factor | Dual-slot | |
| Height | 61 mm, 2.4 inches | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 336 mm, 13.2 inches | 10.5" (26.7 cm) |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 600 Watt | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 12-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| Width | 140 mm, 5.5 inches | |
| SLI options | 2-way3-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 504.2 GB/s | 70.4 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 192 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1313 MHz, 21 Gbps effective | 1100 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR6X | GDDR3 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 with others
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 4070 vs
NVIDIATesla V100S PCIe 32 GB
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 4070 vs
AMDRadeon RX 6600
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 4070 vs
AMDRadeon RX 6950 XT
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 4070 vs
NVIDIARTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 4070 vs
AMDRadeon RX 7900 GRE
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 4070 vs
AMDRadeon RX 6750 GRE 10 GB
