Radeon 780M vs GeForce 9650M GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9650M GT with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.
780M outperforms 9650M GT by a whopping 4955% 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 | 1347 | 350 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 43 |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 84.12 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | G96C | Phoenix |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 August 2008 (17 years ago) | 31 January 2024 (1 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 | 32 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.800 | 139.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0848 TFLOPS | 8.909 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 2 MB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | Motherboard Dependent |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 1920x1200 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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:
| Full HD | 0−1 | 35 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 22 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 13 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−600%
|
35
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3000%
|
31
+3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1625%
|
65−70
+1625%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−420%
|
26
+420%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−800%
|
60−65
+800%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−412%
|
130−140
+412%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1436%
|
210−220
+1436%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24
+2300%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−910%
|
100−110
+910%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1625%
|
65−70
+1625%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−300%
|
20
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 29 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−800%
|
60−65
+800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−820%
|
46
+820%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−412%
|
130−140
+412%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2200%
|
23
+2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−910%
|
100−110
+910%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1625%
|
65−70
+1625%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−200%
|
15
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−800%
|
60−65
+800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−480%
|
29
+480%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−412%
|
130−140
+412%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27
+1250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 120−130 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−5300%
|
160−170
+5300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4000%
|
40−45
+4000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 15 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 20 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 35−40 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−40%
|
21
+40%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−4600%
|
90−95
+4600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 119
+0%
|
119
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 780M is 5300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 780M performs better in 29 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.31 | 15.67 |
| Recency | 19 August 2008 | 31 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 780M has a 4954.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 1275% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9650M GT in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9650M GT is a notebook graphics card while Radeon 780M 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.
