GeForce GTX 1650 vs 9600 GSO

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9600 GSO and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

9600 GSO
2008, $50
384 MB GDDR3, 105 Watt
0.77

GTX 1650 outperforms 9600 GSO by a whopping 2353% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1229329
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0923.32
Power efficiency0.7119.48
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG92TU117
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date28 April 2008 (18 years ago)23 April 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$49.99 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

GTX 1650 has 25811% better value for money than 9600 GSO.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores96896
Core clock speed550 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors754 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate26.4093.24
Floating-point processing power0.264 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs1232
TMUs4856
L1 Cacheno data896 KB
L2 Cache48 KB1024 KB

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).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length229 mm229 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone
SLI options2-way-

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount384 MB4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth38.4 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsDual Link DVIHDTV1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA+7.5

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

9600 GSO 0.77
GTX 1650 18.89
+2353%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

9600 GSO 319
Samples: 253
GTX 1650 7869
+2367%
Samples: 37406

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD2−3
−2950%
61
+2950%
1440p1−2
−3700%
38
+3700%
4K0−124

Cost per frame, $

1080p25.00
−923%
2.44
+923%
1440p49.99
−1175%
3.92
+1175%
4Kno data6.21
  • GTX 1650 has 923% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 has 1175% lower cost per frame in 1440p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Palworld 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 61
+0%
61
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Fortnite 211
+0%
211
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
Palworld 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90
+0%
90
+0%
Valorant 292
+0%
292
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 97
+0%
97
+0%
Far Cry 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Fortnite 85
+0%
85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 83
+0%
83
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 81
+0%
81
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%
Palworld 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 86
+0%
86
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 71
+0%
71
+0%
Valorant 260
+0%
260
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 66
+0%
66
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
+0%
41
+0%
Valorant 70
+0%
70
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 61
+0%
61
+0%
Palworld 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 177
+0%
177
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+0%
46
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 42
+0%
42
+0%
Palworld 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
Palworld 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%
Valorant 83
+0%
83
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 26
+0%
26
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 11
+0%
11
+0%
Palworld 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how 9600 GSO and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 2950% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 3700% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.77 18.89
Recency 28 April 2008 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 384 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 2353% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 967% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 442% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600 GSO 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 70 votes

Rate GeForce 9600 GSO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 28472 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 9600 GSO or GeForce GTX 1650, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.