GeForce 9650M GS vs 7950 GX2

Place in performance ranking	1188	1133
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Architecture	Curie (2003−2013)	G8x (2007−2008)
GPU code name	G71	NB9P-GS1
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	5 June 2006 (18 years ago)	13 March 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$599	no data
Current price	$252 (0.4x MSRP)	$180

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

7950 GX2 and 9650M GS have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	no data	32
CUDA cores	no data	32
Core clock speed	500 MHz	625 MHz
Number of transistors	278 million	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	90 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	29 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.00	10.00
Floating-point performance	no data	80 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce 7950 GX2 and GeForce 9650M GS compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 1.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	270 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR3	GDDR2?, GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1200 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	38.4 GB/s	25.6 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

2x DVI, 1x S-Video

No outputs

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	9.0c (9_3)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	3.0	4.0
OpenGL	2.1	3.3
OpenCL	N/A	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	no data	1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

7950 GX2 0.52

9650M GS 0.70
+34.6%

9650M GS outperforms 7950 GX2 by 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

7950 GX2 201

9650M GS 270
+34.3%

9650M GS outperforms 7950 GX2 by 34% in Passmark.

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

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−50%

3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	1−2
Hitman 3	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	1−2
Hitman 3	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	0−1	1−2
Hitman 3	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%