Radeon R4 (Beema) vs GeForce 9700M GTS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9700M GTS and Radeon R4 (Beema), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R4 (Beema) outperforms 9700M GTS by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1176 | 1109 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.83 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 1.1 (2014) |
| GPU code name | G94 | Beema |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 July 2008 (16 years ago) | 29 April 2014 (10 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 | 48 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 530 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 12.72 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1272 TFLOPS | no data |
| Gigaflops | 180 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
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 | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 | 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 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 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.
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 | 5−6
−60%
| 8
+60%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−6.9%
|
30−35
+6.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−15.8%
|
22
+15.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−6.9%
|
30−35
+6.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−6.9%
|
30−35
+6.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how 9700M GTS and R4 (Beema) compete in popular games:
- R4 (Beema) is 60% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R4 (Beema) is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R4 (Beema) is ahead in 24 tests (59%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (41%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.71 | 1.01 |
| Recency | 29 July 2008 | 29 April 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
R4 (Beema) has a 42.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R4 (Beema) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9700M GTS 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.
