GeForce 9600 GSO vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with GeForce 9600 GSO, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
2020
15 Watt
8.69
+960%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms 9600 GSO by a whopping 960% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking4961146
Place by popularity31not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.09
Power efficiency41.260.70
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameVegaG92
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date7 January 2020 (5 years ago)28 April 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$49.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores51296
Core clock speedno data550 MHz
Boost clock speed2100 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data754 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rateno data26.40
Floating-point processing powerno data0.264 TFLOPS
ROPsno data12
TMUsno data48

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 supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data384 MB
Memory bus widthno data192 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data38.4 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 Connectorsno dataDual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12_111.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno data1.1
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 HD23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
1440p17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
4K90−1

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data25.00
1440pno data49.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+1800%
1−2
−1800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Counter-Strike 2 9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Forza Horizon 4 32
+967%
3−4
−967%
Forza Horizon 5 21
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Metro Exodus 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 33
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Valorant 44
+1000%
4−5
−1000%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Counter-Strike 2 9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Dota 2 29
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Far Cry 5 30
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Fortnite 50−55
+960%
5−6
−960%
Forza Horizon 4 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Forza Horizon 5 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Grand Theft Auto V 19
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Metro Exodus 19
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 57
+1040%
5−6
−1040%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Valorant 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
World of Tanks 48
+1100%
4−5
−1100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Cyberpunk 2077 9 0−1
Dota 2 48
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%
Forza Horizon 4 23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Forza Horizon 5 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+1067%
6−7
−1067%
Valorant 37
+1133%
3−4
−1133%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 9 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 9 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 22
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
World of Tanks 21
+2000%
1−2
−2000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Metro Exodus 17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Valorant 39
+1200%
3−4
−1200%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 10 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 10 0−1
Metro Exodus 6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Fortnite 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 6−7 0−1
Valorant 9−10 0−1

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and 9600 GSO compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1050% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1600% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.69 0.82
Recency 7 January 2020 28 April 2008
Chip lithography 7 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 105 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 959.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 600% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600 GSO in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while GeForce 9600 GSO is a desktop one.


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

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.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO
GeForce 9600 GSO

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


3.8 1346 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 64 votes

Rate GeForce 9600 GSO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.