GeForce 9600 GSO vs GTX 560 Ti

Place in the ranking	514	1128
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.72	0.09
Power efficiency	3.22	0.70
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GF114	G92
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	25 January 2011 (13 years ago)	28 April 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	$49.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 560 Ti has 1811% better value for money than 9600 GSO.

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	384	96
Core clock speed	823 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	52.67	26.40
Floating-point processing power	1.263 TFLOPS	0.264 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	12
TMUs	64	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	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	229 mm	229 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	384 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1002 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	128.3 GB/s	38.4 GB/s

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	2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	2.1	+

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. 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.

GTX 560 Ti 7.90
+829%

9600 GSO 0.85

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.

GTX 560 Ti 3050
+833%

9600 GSO 327

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:

900p	63 +950%	6−7 −950%
Full HD	60 +900%	6−7 −900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.15

8.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14
+1100%

1−2

−1100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +940%	5−6 −940%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +1025%	4−5 −1025%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +833%	6−7 −833%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +940%	5−6 −940%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +1025%	4−5 −1025%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +833%	6−7 −833%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +940%	5−6 −940%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +1025%	4−5 −1025%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +833%	6−7 −833%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24
+1000%

2−3

−1000%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Far Cry 5	9−10	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +900%	3−4 −900%
Hitman 3	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +900%	5−6 −900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+1200%

1−2

−1200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6	0−1
Hitman 3	4−5	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	9−10	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

0−1

This is how GTX 560 Ti and 9600 GSO compete in popular games:

GTX 560 Ti is 950% faster in 900p
GTX 560 Ti is 900% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.90	0.85
Recency	25 January 2011	28 April 2008
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	384 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	105 Watt

GTX 560 Ti has a 829.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

9600 GSO, on the other hand, has 61.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600 GSO in performance tests.

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