GeForce 9650M GT vs Radeon HD 6450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6450 with GeForce 9650M GT, including specs and performance data.
HD 6450 outperforms 9650M by a considerable 45% 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 | 1323 | 1390 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.06 | 1.11 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Caicos | G96C |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 7 April 2011 (15 years ago) | 19 August 2008 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $55 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 160 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 750 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 370 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.000 | 8.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2 TFLOPS | 0.0848 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 8 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 32 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 2.0 x8 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-II |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 8.5-12.8 GB/x (DDR3) or 25.6-28.8 GB/s (GDDR5) | no data |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 4 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 1920x1200 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 29 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.48 | 0.33 |
| Recency | 7 April 2011 | 19 August 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 23 Watt |
HD 6450 has a 45% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 38% more advanced lithography process.
9650M GT, on the other hand, has 30% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6450 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9650M GT in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6450 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 9650M GT is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
