GeForce 9600 GSO vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with GeForce 9600 GSO, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms 9600 GSO by a whopping 949% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 497 | 1146 |
| Place by popularity | 32 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.09 |
| Power efficiency | 41.03 | 0.70 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Vega | G92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 28 April 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $49.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 512 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 26.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 12 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 384 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 38.4 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 data | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 22
+1000%
| 2−3
−1000%
|
| 1440p | 17
+1600%
| 1−2
−1600%
|
| 4K | 10 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 25.00 |
| 1440p | no data | 49.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Fortnite | 47
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+950%
|
8−9
−950%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 48
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 51
+1175%
|
4−5
−1175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Fortnite | 31
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+950%
|
8−9
−950%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 48
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 37
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+956%
|
9−10
−956%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and 9600 GSO compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1000% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1600% faster in 1440p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.92 | 0.85 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 28 April 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 105 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 949.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 600% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600 GSO in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while GeForce 9600 GSO is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
