GeForce 9300 GE vs GT 525M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 525M with GeForce 9300 GE, including specs and performance data.
GT 525M outperforms 9300 GE by a whopping 441% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1070 | 1383 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.54 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | G98 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 1 June 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $22.99 |
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 | 96 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 540 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 7.600 | 4.320 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1824 TFLOPS | 0.0208 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 8 |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR3 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 6.4 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
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.
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:
| 900p | 13
+550%
| 2−3
−550%
|
| Full HD | 21
+600%
| 3−4
−600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 7.66 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Valorant | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 525M and 9300 GE compete in popular games:
- GT 525M is 550% faster in 900p
- GT 525M is 600% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 0.22 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 1 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
GT 525M has a 440.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 525M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9300 GE in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 525M is a notebook card while GeForce 9300 GE 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.
