GeForce 9600M GT vs ATI Radeon HD 5670
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5670 with GeForce 9600M GT, including specs and performance data.
ATI HD 5670 outperforms 9600M GT by a whopping 456% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 886 | 1283 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.25 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.24 | 1.12 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Redwood | G96C |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 4 June 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 400 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 120 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 627 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.50 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.62 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 20 | 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-II |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 26
+550%
| 4−5
−550%
|
| Full HD | 32
+540%
| 5−6
−540%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.72 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| World of Tanks | 40−45
+186%
|
14−16
−186%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how ATI HD 5670 and 9600M GT compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 5670 is 550% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5670 is 540% 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 ATI HD 5670 is 550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI HD 5670 is ahead in 27 tests (87%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (13%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.00 | 0.36 |
| Recency | 14 January 2010 | 4 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | 23 Watt |
ATI HD 5670 has a 455.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
9600M GT, on the other hand, has 178.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 5670 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600M GT in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 5670 is a desktop card while GeForce 9600M GT is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
