ATI Radeon 9600 vs GeForce 310M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 310M with Radeon 9600, including specs and performance data.
310M outperforms ATI 9600 by a whopping 238% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1334 | 1466 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.54 | 0.53 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Rage 8 (2002−2007) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | RV350 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 1 October 2003 (21 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 16 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 606 MHz | 324 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 60 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.848 | 1.296 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04896 TFLOPS | no data |
| Gigaflops | 73 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 4 |
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 support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | AGP 8x |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 1 GB | 64 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 189 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 10.67 GB/s | 6.048 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 9.0 (9_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.27 | 0.08 |
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 1 October 2003 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 12 Watt |
GeForce 310M has a 237.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 225% more advanced lithography process.
ATI 9600, on the other hand, has 16.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 310M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9600 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 310M is a notebook card while Radeon 9600 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
