GeForce 9600M GT vs Quadro M2200

Place in the ranking	426	1282
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	13.82	1.09
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM206	G96C
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)	4 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 cores	1024	32
Core clock speed	695 MHz	120 MHz
Boost clock speed	1036 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,940 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	66.30	8.000
Floating-point processing power	2.122 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	64	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	large	medium sized
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	MXM-II
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1377 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	88 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 Stereo	+	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	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.2	+

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.

Quadro M2200 10.62
+2934%

9600M GT 0.35

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.

Quadro M2200 4243
+2953%

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.

Quadro M2200 24622
+1588%

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	43 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
4K	14	-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +122%	9−10 −122%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3500%	1−2 −3500%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +122%	9−10 −122%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +633%	6−7 −633%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30	0−1
Metro Exodus	30−33	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +625%	4−5 −625%
Valorant	40−45 +4200%	1−2 −4200%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3500%	1−2 −3500%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +122%	9−10 −122%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Dota 2	40−45 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +529%	7−8 −529%
Fortnite	60−65 +3100%	2−3 −3100%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +633%	6−7 −633%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Metro Exodus	30−33	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +1100%	7−8 −1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +625%	4−5 −625%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +560%	5−6 −560%
Valorant	40−45 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
World of Tanks	150−160 +1092%	12−14 −1092%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3500%	1−2 −3500%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +122%	9−10 −122%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Dota 2	40−45 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +529%	7−8 −529%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +633%	6−7 −633%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +1100%	7−8 −1100%
Valorant	40−45 +4200%	1−2 −4200%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +2500%	2−3 −2500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10	0−1
World of Tanks	75−80 +3850%	2−3 −3850%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	16−18	0−1
Metro Exodus	21−24	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%
Valorant	27−30 +575%	4−5 −575%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Dota 2	21−24 +40%	14−16 −40%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +40%	14−16 −40%
Metro Exodus	6−7	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +3100%	1−2 −3100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +40%	14−16 −40%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	21−24 +40%	14−16 −40%
Far Cry 5	14−16	0−1
Fortnite	12−14	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	8−9	0−1
Valorant	10−12	0−1

This is how Quadro M2200 and 9600M GT compete in popular games:

Quadro M2200 is 4200% faster in 1080p

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M2200 is 3100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro M2200 surpassed 9600M GT in all 32 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.62	0.35
Recency	11 January 2017	4 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	23 Watt

Quadro M2200 has a 2934.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

9600M GT, on the other hand, has 139.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600M GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2200 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.