GeForce 9650M GT vs Quadro M3000M

Place in the ranking	360	1293
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	13.49	1.07
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM204	G96C
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	19 August 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	1,024	32
Core clock speed	1050 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.20	8.800
Floating-point processing power	2.15 TFLOPS	0.0848 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
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-II
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 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
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	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	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.

M3000M 14.03
+4026%

9650M GT 0.34

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.

M3000M 5650
+4024%

9650M GT 137

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.

M3000M 27405
+1998%

9650M GT 1306

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	60 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
4K	32	0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +900%	6−7 −900%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40	0−1
Metro Exodus	40−45	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
Valorant	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Dota 2	33	0−1
Far Cry 5	50−55 +671%	7−8 −671%
Fortnite	80−85 +8100%	1−2 −8100%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +900%	6−7 −900%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	49 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Metro Exodus	40−45	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1414%	7−8 −1414%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +800%	5−6 −800%
Valorant	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
World of Tanks	190−200 +1369%	12−14 −1369%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Dota 2	50−55 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +671%	7−8 −671%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +900%	6−7 −900%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1414%	7−8 −1414%
Valorant	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +5350%	2−3 −5350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
World of Tanks	100−110 +5050%	2−3 −5050%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	21−24	0−1
Metro Exodus	30−35	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Valorant	35−40 +640%	5−6 −640%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	35 +133%	14−16 −133%
Grand Theft Auto V	35 +133%	14−16 −133%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 +133%	14−16 −133%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Dota 2	24−27 +73.3%	14−16 −73.3%
Far Cry 5	18−20	0−1
Fortnite	16−18	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	21−24	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	10−12	0−1
Valorant	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%

This is how M3000M and 9650M GT compete in popular games:

M3000M is 5900% faster in 1080p

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the M3000M is 5350% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

M3000M is ahead in 31 test (94%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.03	0.34
Recency	18 August 2015	19 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	23 Watt

M3000M has a 4026.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

9650M GT, on the other hand, has 226.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9650M GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 9650M 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.