Arc A550M vs GeForce 9650M GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9650M GT and Arc A550M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
A550M outperforms 9650M by a whopping 6782% 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 | 1390 | 282 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.11 | 29.30 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | G96C | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 19 August 2008 (18 years ago) | 2022 (4 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 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.800 | 262.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0848 TFLOPS | 8.397 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 256 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 8 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 |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Portable Device Dependent |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 1920x1200 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6200%
|
60−65
+6200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6200%
|
60−65
+6200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1186%
|
90−95
+1186%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−475%
|
160−170
+475%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6200%
|
60−65
+6200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1707%
|
250−260
+1707%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−1233%
|
120−130
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1186%
|
90−95
+1186%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1033%
|
65−70
+1033%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−475%
|
160−170
+475%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−1233%
|
120−130
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1186%
|
90−95
+1186%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1033%
|
65−70
+1033%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−475%
|
160−170
+475%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 160−170 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4250%
|
170−180
+4250%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−5800%
|
55−60
+5800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3600%
|
35−40
+3600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−207%
|
40−45
+207%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−2440%
|
120−130
+2440%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A550M is 6200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A550M performs better in 29 tests (47%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (53%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.33 | 22.71 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 60 Watt |
9650M GT has 161% lower power consumption.
Arc A550M, on the other hand, has a 6782% higher aggregate performance score, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 817% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A550M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9650M GT 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.
