GeForce 9650M GS vs GTX 760
Aggregated performance score
GTX 760 outperforms 9650M GS by 1667% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 366 | 1129 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 4.30 | 0.01 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | G8x (2007−2008) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | NB9P-GS1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 June 2013 (10 years ago) | 13 March 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
| Current price | $136 (0.5x MSRP) | $180 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 760 has 42900% better value for money than 9650M GS.
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 | 1152 | 32 |
| CUDA cores | 1152 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1033 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 94.1 billion/sec | 10.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,378 gflops | 80 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 760 and GeForce 9650M GS 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 | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Minimum recommended system power | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | Two 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR2?, GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | no data |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
| 3D Vision | + | no data |
| PhysX | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Live | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
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 760 outperforms 9650M GS by 1667% based on our aggregated 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 760 outperforms 9650M GS by 1674% 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 760 outperforms 9650M GS by 1528% 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 | 67
+2133%
| 3−4
−2133%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 760 and 9650M GS compete in popular games:
- GTX 760 is 2133% faster than 9650M GS in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 760 is 1900% faster than the 9650M GS.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 760 surpassed 9650M GS in all 25 of our tests.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 12.37 | 0.70 |
| Recency | 25 June 2013 | 13 March 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 29 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 760 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9650M GS in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 760 is a desktop card while GeForce 9650M GS 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.
