GeForce 9600M GS vs GTX 980 SLI Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile and GeForce 9600M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 980 SLI Mobile outperforms 9600M GS by a whopping 11603% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 125 | 1318 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.18 | 1.15 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | N16E-GXX SLI | G96C |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 3 June 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 cores | 4096 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1126 MHz | 103 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10400 Million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 6.880 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | MXM-II |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 2x 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
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 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
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.
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
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.
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 | 137
+13600%
| 1−2
−13600%
|
| 4K | 68 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+20700%
|
1−2
−20700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+12700%
|
1−2
−12700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+20700%
|
1−2
−20700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 160−170
+15900%
|
1−2
−15900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+4600%
|
3−4
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1971%
|
7−8
−1971%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+735%
|
24−27
−735%
|
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+12700%
|
1−2
−12700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+20700%
|
1−2
−20700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2031%
|
12−14
−2031%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+1320%
|
10−11
−1320%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 160−170
+15900%
|
1−2
−15900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+4600%
|
3−4
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130
+12200%
|
1−2
−12200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1971%
|
7−8
−1971%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+3200%
|
4−5
−3200%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+735%
|
24−27
−735%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+12700%
|
1−2
−12700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+1320%
|
10−11
−1320%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+4600%
|
3−4
−4600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1971%
|
7−8
−1971%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+1750%
|
4−5
−1750%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+735%
|
24−27
−735%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+15900%
|
1−2
−15900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+12500%
|
2−3
−12500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+5733%
|
3−4
−5733%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+12400%
|
2−3
−12400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+10200%
|
1−2
−10200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 95−100 | 0−1 |
| Atomic Heart | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+420%
|
14−16
−420%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 220−230
+11000%
|
2−3
−11000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
This is how GTX 980 SLI Mobile and 9600M GS compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 13600% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 11000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980 SLI Mobile surpassed 9600M GS in all 28 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.94 | 0.29 |
| Recency | 22 September 2015 | 3 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 20 Watt |
GTX 980 SLI Mobile has a 11603.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
9600M GS, on the other hand, has 1550% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600M GS in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
