GeForce 9600M GT vs Quadro K1100M

Place in the ranking	796	1279
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.06	no data
Power efficiency	4.31	1.07
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GK107	G96C
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	4 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109.94	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	384	32
Core clock speed	706 MHz	120 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	22.59	8.000
Floating-point processing power	0.5422 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	32	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
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	MXM-II
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	44.8 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
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/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. 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.

K1100M 2.83
+686%

9600M GT 0.36

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.

K1100M 1090
+684%

9600M GT 139

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.

K1100M 8992
+516%

9600M GT 1459

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

17
+750%

2−3

−750%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

6.47

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Hitman 3	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +35.7%	27−30 −35.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Hitman 3	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 +156%	9−10 −156%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +35.7%	27−30 −35.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Hitman 3	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4 −125%	9−10 +125%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +35.7%	27−30 −35.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

This is how K1100M and 9600M GT compete in popular games:

K1100M is 750% faster in 1080p

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

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K1100M is 250% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 9600M GT is 125% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

K1100M is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
9600M GT is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.83	0.36
Recency	23 July 2013	4 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	23 Watt

K1100M has a 686.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

9600M GT, on the other hand, has 95.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K1100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600M GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1100M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 9600M GT is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.