NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two NVIDIA parts into clearly different roles. The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins 2 of the 9 recorded head-to-head tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins 7. That raw count, however, hides the nature of the victories. The RTX A400 takes its wins in modern API and 2D workloads, while the GTX 980M dominates the legacy DirectX suite and raw 3D rasterization.

The RTX A400's strongest showing is in Vulkan, where it scores 22237 against the GTX 980M's 17703, a 25.6% advantage. This is a substantial margin and points toward the newer architecture's better handling of modern graphics APIs. The other win for the RTX A400 is in the Passmark G2D test, scoring 899 versus 490, an 83.5% lead. That is the single largest percentage difference in either direction across all tests, indicating a clear advantage in 2D desktop and compositing workloads.

The GTX 980M, by contrast, wins every DirectX test in the set. Its margins range from 8.6% in DirectX 10 to 35.1% in DirectX 11, with a 30.4% lead in DirectX 9 and a 12.9% lead in DirectX 12. It also wins the overall Passmark G3D test by 18.5% and the GPU compute test by 9.2%. The GTX 980M additionally edges out the RTX A400 in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 23832 versus 22844, a 4.1% difference. The practical interpretation is straightforward: workloads built around older DirectX pipelines or heavy rasterization favor the GTX 980M, while Vulkan-centric applications and 2D-heavy tasks favor the RTX A400.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6078, while the GTX 980M has an average score of 5308. The RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, and the GTX 980M sits at the 31st percentile.

Q: How does the RTX A400 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX A400's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with an average score of 6077, a 0% delta. It is 0.5% ahead of the Quadro P2000, 0.6% behind the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M.

Q: Where does the GTX 980M rank among its closest competitors?

A: The GTX 980M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 930A with an average score of 5317, a 0.2% gap in favor of the 930A. It is 0.3% behind the GeForce 840M, 0.5% ahead of the GeForce 940M, and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M445.

Q: Which card is better for modern graphics APIs?

A: The RTX A400 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test by 25.6%, scoring 22237 against 17703. This indicates a clear advantage for the newer Ampere architecture in Vulkan workloads.

Q: Which card performs better in DirectX 11?

A: The GTX 980M wins DirectX 11 by 35.1%, scoring 57 against the RTX A400's 37. This is the largest margin in the entire head-to-head set, favoring the older Maxwell 2.0 design in this legacy API.

Q: What is the difference in 2D performance?

A: The RTX A400 scores 899 in Passmark G2D against the GTX 980M's 490, an 83.5% lead. This is the biggest single-test advantage recorded for either card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the RTX A400 comes in Passmark G2D, where it scores 899 against 490. That 83.5% margin is decisive and suggests the RTX A400 handles 2D operations, desktop rendering, and memory bandwidth for simple scenes far more efficiently. The next biggest win for the RTX A400 is in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 22237 against 17703, a 25.6% advantage. This is notable because Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API, and the Ampere architecture's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and newer features likely contributes to this gap.

The GTX 980M's wins are concentrated in the legacy DirectX tests. The largest is DirectX 11, where it scores 57 versus 37, a 35.1% lead. DirectX 9 shows a 30.4% margin with scores of 125 versus 87. DirectX 12 is closer, with the GTX 980M scoring 31 against 27, a 12.9% lead. DirectX 10 shows a smaller margin of 8.6%, with scores of 35 versus 32. The GTX 980M also wins the Passmark G3D test, scoring 7338 against 5983, an 18.5% advantage. In GPU compute, the GTX 980M scores 2816 against 2557, a 9.2% lead. Finally, in Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980M scores 23832 versus 22844, a 4.1% margin.

The data shows a consistent pattern. The GTX 980M is stronger in raw rasterization, as evidenced by the G3D score and the DirectX suite. The RTX A400 is stronger in Vulkan and 2D, but its overall average score is higher because of that G2D result and its more balanced performance profile. The GTX 980M's wins are often by larger margins, but they are in older or less demanding workloads. The RTX A400's wins are in areas that matter more for future-facing applications.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 980M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s. The GTX 980M has double the memory capacity and over 60% more bandwidth, which explains its advantage in texture-heavy and high-resolution workloads.

The shading unit count also differs significantly. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 980M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GTX 980M has exactly double the shading units, four times the TMUs, and four times the ROPs. This hardware advantage translates to a pixel rate of 72.13 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 108.2 GTexel/s for the GTX 980M, against 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s for the RTX A400.

Clock speeds differ as well. The RTX A400 runs at a base of 1417 MHz and boosts to 1762 MHz. The GTX 980M runs at a base of 1038 MHz and boosts to 1127 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the GTX 980M's higher core count gives it a higher FP32 throughput of 3.462 TFLOPS versus the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. The RTX A400 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with 2.706 TFLOPS, while the GTX 980M has no recorded FP16 capability.

The memory clocks also differ, with the RTX A400 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) and the GTX 980M at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The RTX A400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the GTX 980M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface. The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, while the GTX 980M has no recorded TDP. The RTX A400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the GTX 980M is an MXM module. The RTX A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GTX 980M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A400 is built on the GA107 chip using the Ampere architecture on Samsung's 8 nm process. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The GTX 980M is built on the GM204 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture on TSMC's 28 nm process. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The RTX A400 packs more than 60% more transistors into half the die area, a direct result of the newer process node.

The RTX A400 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, features that are entirely absent from the GTX 980M. This is the defining architectural difference. The GTX 980M has no ray tracing or tensor core support, which means it cannot accelerate ray-traced workloads or AI-based features. The RTX A400's API support reflects this: it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 980M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The production status also differs. The RTX A400 is listed as Active, with a release date of April 2024. The GTX 980M is listed as End-of-life, with a release date of October 2014. The RTX A400 is part of the Workstation Ampere generation, while the GTX 980M is part of the GeForce 900M generation. The RTX A400's predecessor is the Quadro Turing line, and its successor is Workstation Ada. The GTX 980M's predecessor is the GeForce 800M line, and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct user profiles. The GTX 980M is the better choice for anyone running DirectX 9 through DirectX 12 workloads, especially DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 where its leads are 35.1% and 30.4% respectively. Its 18.5% advantage in Passmark G3D and 9.2% lead in GPU compute also make it stronger for general 3D rendering and compute tasks. The GTX 980M's 8 GB memory capacity and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth provide a solid foundation for texture-heavy applications.

The RTX A400 is the better choice for Vulkan-based applications, where it leads by 25.6%, and for 2D workloads, where its 83.5% G2D advantage is overwhelming. Its higher average benchmark score of 6078 against 5308, and its higher percentile rank (35th versus 31st), reflect a more balanced overall performance profile. The RTX A400 also brings ray tracing and tensor cores, which the GTX 980M lacks entirely, plus support for DirectX 12 Ultimate.

The choice comes down to workload. Legacy DirectX software and high-resolution rasterization favor the GTX 980M. Modern Vulkan pipelines, 2D interfaces, and any ray-traced or tensor-accelerated tasks favor the RTX A400. The RTX A400 is the more future-proof option given its active production status and newer architecture, but the GTX 980M's raw throughput in traditional 3D rendering is hard to ignore. Users with older game libraries or OpenGL-heavy applications should lean toward the GTX 980M, while those working with current-generation APIs should choose the RTX A400.