Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs GeForce 9600M GT

Place in the ranking	1286	450
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.12	no data
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Xe LPG (2023)
GPU code name	G96C	Meteor Lake iGPU
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	4 June 2008 (16 years ago)	14 December 2023 (1 year 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	4
Core clock speed	120 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	1950 MHz
Number of transistors	314 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	8.000	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.08 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	8	no data
TMUs	16	no data

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	no data
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	GDDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	no data
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 data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12_2
Shader Model	4.0	no data
OpenGL	3.3	no data
OpenCL	1.1	no data
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

0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −85.7%	13 +85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2600%	27−30 +2600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −57.1%	11 +57.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2600%	27−30 +2600%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −1567%	50 +1567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −386%	30−35 +386%
Valorant	27−30 −241%	90−95 +241%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −700%	16 +700%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −85.7%	13 +85.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	14−16 −2400%	350−400 +2400%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1900%	20−22 +1900%
Dota 2	10−11 −2600%	270−280 +2600%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −1200%	39 +1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −386%	30−35 +386%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −525%	24−27 +525%
Valorant	27−30 −241%	90−95 +241%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1900%	20−22 +1900%
Dota 2	10−11 −2600%	270−280 +2600%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −900%	30 +900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −386%	30−35 +386%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −2400%	100−105 +2400%
Valorant	27−30 −241%	90−95 +241%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

2−3

−2350%

45−50
+2350%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −2200%	21−24 +2200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1400%	14−16 +1400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −33.3%	20−22 +33.3%
Valorant	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

2−3

−2400%

50−55
+2400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	24 +0%	24 +0%
Fortnite	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	15 +0%	15 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Atomic Heart	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Fortnite	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Atomic Heart

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Atomic Heart	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Fortnite	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 2350% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is ahead in 23 tests (40%)
there's a draw in 35 tests (60%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.37	10.14
Recency	4 June 2008	14 December 2023
Chip lithography	55 nm	5 nm

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) has a 2640.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and a 1000% more advanced lithography process.

The Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600M GT in performance tests.

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.

GeForce 9600M GT

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)

Other comparisons

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

GeForce 9600M GT

GeForce GT 130M

Graphics 4 Cores iGPU (Arc)

Iris Xe Graphics G7

GeForce 9600M GT

Mobility Radeon HD 545v

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470

Quadro K5100M

ATI Radeon HD 4850

HD Graphics P4600

NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTX

Arc A370M

NVIDIA GeForce GT 430

UHD Graphics 617

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650

Mobility Radeon HD 4200 IGP

NVIDIA GeForce 320M

HD 5450

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470

UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake)

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650

MX 4000

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4570

UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake)

Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics

GMA

Community ratings

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

3.5 100 votes

Rate GeForce 9600M GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

2.1 10 votes

Rate Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) on a scale of 1 to 5:

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 9600M GT or Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.