Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs GeForce 9600M GS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9600M GS and Iris Xe MAX Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MAX Graphics outperforms 9600M GS by a whopping 1041% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1357 | 735 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.43 | 13.08 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) |
| GPU code name | G96C | DG1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2008 (18 years ago) | 31 October 2020 (5 years ago) |
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 cores | 32 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 103 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.880 | 79.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0688 TFLOPS | 2.534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 24 |
| TMUs | 16 | 48 |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
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 type | GDDR3 | LPDDR4X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2133 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 68.26 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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.
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.
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 HD | 2−3
−1250%
| 27
+1250%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−1900%
| 20
+1900%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−1500%
| 16
+1500%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−100%
|
55−60
+100%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−400%
|
75−80
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−300%
|
40
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−467%
|
34
+467%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−100%
|
55−60
+100%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−280%
|
38
+280%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−200%
|
18
+200%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−100%
|
55−60
+100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−3100%
|
30−35
+3100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−725%
|
30−35
+725%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how 9600M GS and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1250% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1900% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 3100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics performs better in 30 tests (52%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.37 | 4.22 |
| Recency | 3 June 2008 | 31 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 25 Watt |
9600M GS has 25% lower power consumption.
Iris Xe MAX Graphics, on the other hand, has a 1041% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 450% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe MAX Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600M GS 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.
