CPU
GPU
GeForce 9650M GT
Popular choices:
GeForce 310
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 9650M GT is positioned at rank 679 and the GeForce 310 is on rank 577, so the GeForce 310 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9650M GT
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 310
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 310 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce 9650M GT offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce 310 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 310 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce 310 holds the technical lead. Priced at $5 (vs $25), it costs 80% less, resulting in a 421.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce 310 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+421.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($25) | ✅More affordable ($5) |
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 9650M GT and GeForce 310
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.
GeForce 310
The GeForce 310 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 928 MHz to 941 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 143 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 9650M GT scores 137 and the GeForce 310 reaches 143 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 9650M GT is built on Maxwell while the GeForce 310 uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 640 (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 384 (GeForce 310). Raw compute: 1.306 TFLOPS (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 0.7227 TFLOPS (GeForce 310). Boost clocks: 1020 MHz vs 941 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce 310 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 137 | 143+4% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 640+67% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.306 TFLOPS+81% | 0.7227 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1020 MHz+8% | 941 MHz |
| ROPs | 16+100% | 8 |
| TMUs | 40+67% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB+67% | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce 310 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce 9650M GT comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce 310 has 512 MB. The GeForce 9650M GT offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 1 MB (GeForce 310) — the GeForce 9650M GT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce 310 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB+100% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 10.1 (GeForce 310). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce 310 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0)+10% | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No NVENC (G96) (GeForce 9650M GT) vs None (GeForce 310). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP3 vs PureVideo VP4. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,WMV9 (GeForce 9650M GT) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 (GeForce 310).
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce 310 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No NVENC (G96) | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP3 | PureVideo VP4 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,WMV9 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 9650M GT draws 75W versus the GeForce 310's 33W — a 77.8% difference. The GeForce 310 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 350W (GeForce 310). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce 310 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 33W-56% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Height | — | 69mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 1.8 | 4.3+139% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 9650M GT launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $25, while the GeForce 310 launched at $45 and now averages $5. The GeForce 310 costs 80% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 5.5 (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 28.6 (GeForce 310) — the GeForce 310 offers 420% better value.
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce 310 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $45-55% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25 | $5-80% |
| Performance per Dollar | 5.5 | 28.6+420% |
| Codename | GM107 | GM108 |
| Release | October 27 2015 | March 13 2015 |
| Ranking | #671 | #810 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 9650M GT and GeForce 310
