GeForce 210 vs GeForce 9650M GT
GeForce 210
Popular choices:
GeForce 9650M GT
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce 210 is positioned at rank 599 and the GeForce 9650M GT is on rank 679, so the GeForce 210 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 210
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9650M GT
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce 210 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce 210 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce 9650M GT lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 210 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.7% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 9650M GT.
| Insight | GeForce 210 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 210 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $5 versus $25 for the GeForce 9650M GT, it costs 80% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 403.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 210 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+403.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($5) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($25) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 210 and GeForce 9650M GT
GeForce 210
The GeForce 210 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 138 points.
GeForce 9650M GT
The GeForce 9650M GT is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 27 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 928 MHz to 1020 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 137 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 210 scores 138 and the GeForce 9650M GT reaches 137 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 210 is built on Pascal while the GeForce 9650M GT uses Maxwell, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 210) vs 640 (GeForce 9650M GT). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 210) vs 1.306 TFLOPS (GeForce 9650M GT). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1020 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 210 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 138 | 137 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 640+67% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 1.306 TFLOPS+64% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz+2% | 1020 MHz |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 40+67% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 320 KB+122% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 210 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 1 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce 210) vs 2 MB (GeForce 9650M GT) — the GeForce 9650M GT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 210 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (GeForce 210) vs 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce 9650M GT). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 210 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 11.1 (10_0)+10% |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 210) vs No NVENC (G96) (GeForce 9650M GT). Decoder: PureVideo VP4 vs PureVideo HD VP3. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264 (GeForce 210) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,WMV9 (GeForce 9650M GT).
| Feature | GeForce 210 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No NVENC (G96) |
| Decoder | PureVideo VP4 | PureVideo HD VP3 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,WMV9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 210 draws 10W versus the GeForce 9650M GT's 75W — a 152.9% difference. The GeForce 210 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 210) vs 350W (GeForce 9650M GT). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce 210 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-87% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | 168mm | — |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 13.8+667% | 1.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 210 launched at $50 MSRP and currently averages $5, while the GeForce 9650M GT launched at $100 and now averages $25. The GeForce 210 costs 80% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 27.6 (GeForce 210) vs 5.5 (GeForce 9650M GT) — the GeForce 210 offers 401.8% better value. The GeForce 210 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce 210 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $50-50% | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $5-80% | $25 |
| Performance per Dollar | 27.6+402% | 5.5 |
| Codename | GP108B | GM107 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | October 27 2015 |
| Ranking | #643 | #671 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 210 and GeForce 9650M GT
