Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
9700M GT vs GTX 1650 SUPER
Combined performance score
GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms 9700M GT by 4746% in our combined benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 189 | 1178 |
Place by popularity | 50 | not in top-100 |
Value for money | 27.05 | no data |
Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | G9x (2007−2010) |
GPU code name | TU116 | NB9E-GE |
Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
Release date | 29 October 2019 (4 years old) | 3 June 2008 (15 years old) |
Current price | $206 | $310 |
GTX 1650 SUPER and 9700M GT have a nearly equal value for money.
Technical specs
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 | 1280 | 32 |
CUDA cores | no data | 32 |
Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 625 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1725 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 314 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 65 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 45 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 138.0 | 10.00 |
Floating-point performance | no data | 99.2 gflops |
Gigaflops | no data | 148 |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and GeForce 9700M GT 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 | no data | medium sized |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-II |
Length | 229 mm | no data |
Width | 2-slot | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
Memory
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR2, GDDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 800 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
HDMI | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
VR Ready | + | no data |
Multi Monitor | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
Shader Model | 6.5 | 4.0 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
CUDA | 7.5 | + |
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.
GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms 9700M GT by 4746% in our combined 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%
GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms 9700M GT by 4776% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms 9700M GT by 3585% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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 | 72
+7100%
| 1−2
−7100%
|
1440p | 36 | 0−1 |
4K | 22 | -0−1 |
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+2000%
|
3−4
−2000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 53
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
Battlefield 5 | 72
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 65−70
+763%
|
8−9
−763%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 50
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
Far Cry 5 | 93
+9200%
|
1−2
−9200%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 89
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+8600%
|
1−2
−8600%
|
Hitman 3 | 105
+5150%
|
2−3
−5150%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 74
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 71
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 85
+1317%
|
6−7
−1317%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 71
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 26 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 58
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 65−70
+763%
|
8−9
−763%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+1233%
|
3−4
−1233%
|
Far Cry 5 | 86
+8500%
|
1−2
−8500%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 83
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+8600%
|
1−2
−8600%
|
Hitman 3 | 83
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 58
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
Metro Exodus | 51
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 67
+1017%
|
6−7
−1017%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90
+2900%
|
3−4
−2900%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 61
+6000%
|
1−2
−6000%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 15 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 57
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
Far Cry 5 | 79
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 76
+7500%
|
1−2
−7500%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+8600%
|
1−2
−8600%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 21 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
Hitman 3 | 51
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 39
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
Metro Exodus | 29 | 0−1 |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 11 | 0−1 |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30 | 0−1 |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 42 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
Far Cry 5 | 54
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 55
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 14 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
Hitman 3 | 25
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 5
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
Metro Exodus | 16 | 0−1 |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19 | 0−1 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18 | 0−1 |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 24 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 24
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 28
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 8 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and 9700M GT compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GTX 1650 SUPER is 7100% faster than 9700M GT
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 SUPER is 5300% faster than the 9700M GT.
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the 9700M GT is 60% faster than the GTX 1650 SUPER.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in 24 tests (96%)
- 9700M GT is ahead in 1 test (4%)
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance score | 26.17 | 0.54 |
Recency | 29 October 2019 | 3 June 2008 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
Chip lithography | 12 nm | 65 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 45 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9700M GT in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop card while GeForce 9700M GT is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.