0
Check Prices $160.00
0
Check Prices $69.00
Select any two GPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game GeForce 9800 GT 1GB Radeon R7 240 2GB
Hitman 3 778% 1053%
Cyberpunk 2077 575% 786%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 517% 711%
Resident Evil 8 575% 786%
FIFA 21 240% 347%
Grand Theft Auto VI 849% 1147%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 497% 684%
Genshin Impact 575% 786%
Far Cry 6 876% 1182%
The Medium 742% 1006%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT 1GB are noticeably better than the AMD Radeon R7 240 2GB.

The R7 240 has a 130 MHz higher core clock speed than the 9800 GT, but the 9800 GT has 36 more Texture Mapping Units than the R7 240. As a result, the 9800 GT exhibits a 19 GTexel/s better Texture Fill Rate than the R7 240. This still holds weight but shader performance is generally more relevant, particularly since both of these GPUs support at least DirectX 10.

The R7 240 has a 130 MHz higher core clock speed than the 9800 GT, but the 9800 GT has 8 more Render Output Units than the R7 240. As a result, the 9800 GT exhibits a 3.8 GPixel/s better Pixel Fill Rate than the R7 240. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.

The R7 240 was released over three years more recently than the 9800 GT, and so the R7 240 is likely to have far better driver support, meaning it will be much more optimized and ultimately superior to the 9800 GT when running the latest games.

The R7 240 has 1024 MB more video memory than the 9800 GT, so is likely to be much better at displaying game textures at higher resolutions. However, overall, the 9800 GT has superior memory performance.

The 9800 GT has 28.8 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the R7 240, which means that the memory performance of the 9800 GT is slightly better than the R7 240.

The GeForce 9800 GT 1GB has 112 Shader Processing Units and the Radeon R7 240 2GB has 320. However, the actual shader performance of the 9800 GT is 168 and the actual shader performance of the R7 240 is 212. The R7 240 having 44 better shader performance is not particularly notable, as altogether the 9800 GT performs better when taking into account other relevant data.

The R7 240 transistor size technology is 37 nm (nanometers) smaller than the 9800 GT. This means that the R7 240 is expected to run much cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the 9800 GT.

The GeForce 9800 GT 1GB requires 105 Watts to run and the Radeon R7 240 2GB requires 30 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 400 Watts for the 9800 GT and a PSU with at least 400 Watts for the R7 240. The 9800 GT requires 75 Watts more than the R7 240 to run. The difference is significant enough that the 9800 GT may have an adverse affect on your yearly electricity bills in comparison to the R7 240.

Game FPS Benchmarks On Ultra

GPU Architecture

Core Speed600 MHzvs730 MHz
Boost Clock-vs780 MHz
ArchitectureTesla G92-270-A2GCN 1.1 Oland PRO
OC Potential Fair vs Good
Driver Support Poor vs Great
Release Date21 Jul 2008vs08 Oct 2013
GPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved
Comparison

Resolution Performance

1366x768
7.2
green tick vs
6.4
1600x900
5.4
green tick vs
4.9
1920x1080
3.9
green tick vs
3.1
2560x1440
2.3
green tick vs green tick
2.3
3840x2160 - vs green tick
1.5

GPU Memory

Memory1024 MBvs2048 MB
Memory Speed900 MHzvs900 MHz
Memory Bus256 Bitvs128 Bit
Memory TypeGDDR3vsDDR3
Memory Bandwidth57.6GB/secvs28.8GB/sec
L2 Cache 0 KB vs green tick 512 KB
Delta Color Compression no vs no
Memory Performance 0% green tick vs green tick 0%
Comparison

GPU Display

Shader Processing Units112vs320
Actual Shader Performance8%vs10%
Technology65nmvs28nm
Texture Mapping Units56vs20
Texture Rate33.6 GTexel/svs14.6 GTexel/s
Render Output Units16vs8
Pixel Rate9.6 GPixel/svs5.8 GPixel/s
Comparison

GPU Outputs

Max Digital Resolution (WxH)2560x1600vs4096x2160
VGA Connections0vs1
DVI Connections2vs1
HDMI Connections0vs1
DisplayPort Connections0vs-
Comparison

GPU Power Requirements

Max Power105 Wattsvs30 Watts
Recommended PSU400 Watts & 27 Ampsvs400 Watts & 18 Amps

GPU Features

DirectX10.0vs12.0
Shader Model4.0vs5.0
Open GL3.3vs4.4
Open CL-vs-
Notebook GPUnono
SLI/Crossfireyesvsno
Dedicatedyesvsyes
Comparison

GPU Supporting Hardware

Recommended ProcessorIntel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHzvsIntel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz
Recommended RAM4 GBvs4 GB
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution1366x768vs1366x768

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

GPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewOverview
GeForce 9800 GT 1GB is a High-End Graphics Card based on the first revision of the Tesla Architecture.

Architecture
Tesla was NVIDIA's First Unified Shader Architecture.

GPU
It equips a GPU Codenamed G92-270-A2 which has 7 Stream Multiprocessors activated and thus offers 112 Shader Processing Units, 56 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The Central Unit is clocked at 600MHz.

Memory
The GPU accesses a 1GB frame buffer of GDDR3, through a 256-bit memory interface. The size of the frame buffer is adequate. The Memory Clock Operates at 900MHz.

Features
DirectX 10.0 Support (10.0 Hardware Default) and support for SLI, NVIDIA PureVideo HD Technology, Dual-stream Hardware Acceleration, PhysX, CUDA, HybridPower and other technologies.

Cooling Solution
The Cooling Solution consists of a Single-Fan.

Power Consumption
With a rated board TDP of 105W, it requires at least a 400W PSU and it requires at least one 6-pin available connectors.

Performance
GeForce 9800 GT 1GB offers better performance than GeForce 9800 GT 512MB at resolutions over 1600x900.
Note: This Graphics Card has 2 variants: one with DDR3 and another with GDDR5. This is the DDR3 Version.

Radeon R7 240 2GB offers a core codenamed Oland PRO and thus features 320 Shader Processing Units, 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs, on a 128-bit bus width of standard DDR3. While the central unit runs at 730MHz and goes up to 780MHz, in Turbo Mode, the memory clock operates at 900MHz.
With a rated board TDP of 30W, it requires no extra power connectors.

Compared to Radeon R7 250, its performance is significantly lower (over 25% slower), especially at higher resolutions due to the limited memory bandwidth. Still, the TDP is relatively low and so this card may be used on low end systems and offer a reasonable upgrade, when compared to integrated graphics.
Recommended CPU
Possible GPU Upgrades
-
GPU Variants