GeForce 9650M GT vs 820M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 820M and GeForce 9650M GT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 820M
2013
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.28
+256%

820M outperforms 9650M GT by a whopping 256% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking10381286
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.871.08
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGF117G96C
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date27 November 2013 (11 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 cores9632
Core clock speed625 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors585 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate10.008.800
Floating-point processing power0.24 TFLOPS0.0848 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs1616

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-II

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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB256 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s25.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Maximum VGA resolutionno data1920x1200

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boost2.0no data
Optimus+-
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

GeForce 820M 1.28
+256%
9650M 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.

GeForce 820M 492
+259%
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.

GeForce 820M 5106
+291%
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 HD15
+275%
4−5
−275%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Dota 2 1−2 0−1
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Fortnite 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
World of Tanks 27−30
+115%
12−14
−115%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Dota 2 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GeForce 820M and 9650M GT compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 820M is 275% 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 GeForce 820M is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 820M is ahead in 25 tests (78%)
  • there's a draw in 7 tests (22%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.28 0.36
Recency 27 November 2013 19 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 23 Watt

GeForce 820M has a 255.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 820M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9650M GT in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 820M
GeForce 820M
NVIDIA GeForce 9650M GT
GeForce 9650M GT

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 865 votes

Rate GeForce 820M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 7 votes

Rate GeForce 9650M GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.