Radeon PRO W7800 vs GeForce 9650M GS

Place in performance ranking	1129	12
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation	0.01	8.63
Architecture	G8x (2007−2008)	RDNA 3.0 (2022)
GPU code name	NB9P-GS1	Navi 31
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	13 March 2008 (16 years ago)	13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$2,499
Current price	$180	$3907 (1.6x MSRP)

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO W7800 has 86200% better value for money than 9650M GS.

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	32	4480
CUDA cores	32	no data
Core clock speed	625 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	2499 MHz
Number of transistors	289 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	80 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	29 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.00	699.7
Floating-point performance	80 gflops	no data

Form Factor & Compatibility

Information on GeForce 9650M GS and Radeon PRO W7800 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	large	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	280 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2x 8-pin

Memory type	GDDR2?, GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	32 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	18 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	576.0 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

No outputs

3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1

API Compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.7
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	1.1	no data

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.

9650M GS 0.70

PRO W7800 74.93
+10604%

Radeon PRO W7800 outperforms GeForce 9650M GS by 10604% based on our aggregated 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%

9650M GS 270

PRO W7800 29006
+10643%

Radeon PRO W7800 outperforms GeForce 9650M GS by 10643% 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

3−4

−9900%

300−310
+9900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −10525%	850−900 +10525%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −9900%	300−310 +9900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −9900%	300−310 +9900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −9900%	600−650 +9900%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −10525%	850−900 +10525%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −9900%	300−310 +9900%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −9900%	100−105 +9900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −9900%	300−310 +9900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −9900%	600−650 +9900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −9900%	300−310 +9900%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −9900%	300−310 +9900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −9900%	300−310 +9900%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −9900%	300−310 +9900%
Hitman 3	3−4 −9900%	300−310 +9900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −10525%	850−900 +10525%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −9900%	400−450 +9900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −9900%	100−105 +9900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −9900%	100−105 +9900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −9900%	100−105 +9900%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −9900%	100−105 +9900%
Hitman 3	1−2 −9900%	100−105 +9900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −9900%	700−750 +9900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	3−4 −9900%	300−310 +9900%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −9900%	500−550 +9900%

Pros & Cons Summary

Performance score	0.70	74.93
Recency	13 March 2008	13 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	32 GB
Chip lithography	80 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	29 Watt	260 Watt