Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce 9600M GS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9600M GS and Radeon Vega 7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vega 7 outperforms 9600M GS by a whopping 2079% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1304 | 536 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 12 |
| Power efficiency | 1.18 | 11.43 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G96C | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 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 | 32 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 103 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.880 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0688 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 28 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | IGP |
| 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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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 | 1−2
−2200%
| 23
+2200%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−2400%
| 25
+2400%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 15 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−383%
|
29
+383%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−575%
|
27
+575%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−367%
|
28
+367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−300%
|
24
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−557%
|
46
+557%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−360%
|
21−24
+360%
|
| World of Tanks | 12−14
−346%
|
58
+346%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−250%
|
21
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−757%
|
60−65
+757%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1900%
|
300−310
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−2100%
|
21−24
+2100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1900%
|
300−310
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 7−8 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Valorant | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how 9600M GS and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 2200% faster in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 2400% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Vega 7 is 2100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Vega 7 is ahead in 22 tests (46%)
- there's a draw in 26 tests (54%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.33 | 7.19 |
| Recency | 3 June 2008 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 45 Watt |
9600M GS has 125% lower power consumption.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 2078.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600M GS in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
