GeForce 9650M GS vs Radeon HD 7500G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7500G and GeForce 9650M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 7500G outperforms 9650M GS by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1156 | 1182 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.28 | 1.65 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Devastator Lite | G84 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 13 March 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 | 256 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 327 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 424 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.784 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2171 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
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.
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.
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 - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+3.4%
|
27−30
−3.4%
|
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+10.5%
|
18−20
−10.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+3.4%
|
27−30
−3.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+3.4%
|
27−30
−3.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the HD 7500G is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7500G is ahead in 14 tests (45%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (55%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.70 | 0.60 |
| Recency | 15 May 2012 | 13 March 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 29 Watt |
HD 7500G has a 16.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 70.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7500G is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9650M GS in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
