GeForce 9500M G vs GTX 280M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 280M and GeForce 9500M G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 280M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.49
+381%

GTX 280M outperforms 9500M G by a whopping 381% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking9891326
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.371.07
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameG92G96
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 March 2009 (15 years ago)3 June 2008 (16 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 cores12816
Core clock speed585 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors754 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate37.444.000
Floating-point processing power0.3745 TFLOPS0.04 TFLOPS
Gigaflops56260
ROPs168
TMUs648

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-IVPCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options+-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 950 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth61 GB/s25.6 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 ConnectorsHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGANo outputs
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.04.0
OpenGL2.13.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

GTX 280M 1.49
+381%
9500M G 0.31

  • Passmark

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.

GTX 280M 575
+375%
9500M G 121

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Atomic Heart 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Fortnite 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Valorant 35−40
+34.6%
24−27
−34.6%
Atomic Heart 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+138%
12−14
−138%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
Fortnite 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Valorant 35−40
+34.6%
24−27
−34.6%
Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Valorant 35−40
+34.6%
24−27
−34.6%
Fortnite 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Valorant 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Fortnite 2−3 0−1
Atomic Heart 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 280M is 350% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 280M is ahead in 31 test (94%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.49 0.31
Recency 3 March 2009 3 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 20 Watt

GTX 280M has a 380.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

9500M G, on the other hand, has 275% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 280M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9500M G in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M
GeForce GTX 280M
NVIDIA GeForce 9500M G
GeForce 9500M G

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1
8 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 280M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1
1 vote

Rate GeForce 9500M G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 280M or GeForce 9500M G, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.