Radeon 620 vs GeForce 9650M GS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9650M GS and Radeon 620, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
620 outperforms 9650M GS by a whopping 251% 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 | 1248 | 905 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.73 | 3.51 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | G84 | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 March 2008 (18 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (7 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 32 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 128 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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 14.4 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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−46.4%
|
40−45
+46.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−142%
|
45−50
+142%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−46.4%
|
40−45
+46.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−46.4%
|
40−45
+46.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 620 is 467% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 620 performs better in 28 tests (60%)
- there's a draw in 19 tests (40%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.65 | 2.28 |
| Recency | 13 March 2008 | 13 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 50 Watt |
9650M GS has 72% lower power consumption.
Radeon 620, on the other hand, has a 251% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 620 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.
