GeForce 9650M GT vs GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and GeForce 9650M GT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms 9650M GT by a whopping 7919% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 205 | 1298 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 100.00 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 24.55 | 1.06 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | G96C |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 19 August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1536 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 152.6 | 8.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.884 TFLOPS | 0.0848 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 8 |
| TMUs | 96 | 16 |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-II |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| 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 outputs |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 1920x1200 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D 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 results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
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 | 88
+8700%
| 1−2
−8700%
|
| 1440p | 58 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 35 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60 | no data |
| 1440p | 3.95 | no data |
| 4K | 6.54 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 109
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 147
+14600%
|
1−2
−14600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+8500%
|
1−2
−8500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 81
+3950%
|
2−3
−3950%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+11000%
|
1−2
−11000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 133
+13200%
|
1−2
−13200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 68
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+9200%
|
1−2
−9200%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+12800%
|
1−2
−12800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+4367%
|
3−4
−4367%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100
+9900%
|
1−2
−9900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| Valorant | 209
+674%
|
27−30
−674%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50
+2400%
|
2−3
−2400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 103
+10200%
|
1−2
−10200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 101
+10000%
|
1−2
−10000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+1807%
|
14−16
−1807%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| Dota 2 | 121
+1110%
|
10−11
−1110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+12800%
|
1−2
−12800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 125
+4067%
|
3−4
−4067%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90
+8900%
|
1−2
−8900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+10400%
|
1−2
−10400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 54 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+2475%
|
4−5
−2475%
|
| Valorant | 207
+667%
|
27−30
−667%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 94
+9300%
|
1−2
−9300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+1060%
|
10−11
−1060%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+3200%
|
3−4
−3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 109
+1457%
|
7−8
−1457%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Valorant | 125
+363%
|
27−30
−363%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 107
+10600%
|
1−2
−10600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+9300%
|
2−3
−9300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+5733%
|
3−4
−5733%
|
| Valorant | 197
+9750%
|
2−3
−9750%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 69 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 69 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+247%
|
14−16
−247%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 152
+7500%
|
2−3
−7500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 85
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and 9650M GT compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 8700% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 8500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti Mobile surpassed 9650M GT in all 28 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.86 | 0.31 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 19 August 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 23 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 7919.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.
9650M GT, on the other hand, has 247.8% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9650M GT 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.
