GeForce 9650M GS vs Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire and GeForce 9650M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 6970M Crossfire outperforms 9650M GS by a whopping 1192% 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 | 559 | 1263 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.73 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb XT | G84 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 13 March 2008 (18 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 | 1920 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 680 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x1700 Million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 29 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | large | large |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 2x2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| 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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 94
+1243%
| 7−8
−1243%
|
| Full HD | 102
+1357%
| 7−8
−1357%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+204%
|
27−30
−204%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+595%
|
18−20
−595%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+204%
|
27−30
−204%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+204%
|
27−30
−204%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+2067%
|
3−4
−2067%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+1350%
|
6−7
−1350%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
This is how HD 6970M Crossfire and 9650M GS compete in popular games:
- HD 6970M Crossfire is 1243% faster in 900p
- HD 6970M Crossfire is 1357% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Escape from Tarkov, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 6970M Crossfire is 3300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, HD 6970M Crossfire surpassed 9650M GS in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.40 | 0.65 |
| Recency | 6 January 2011 | 13 March 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 80 nm |
HD 6970M Crossfire has a 1192% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9650M 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.
