CPU
GPU
GeForce 9650M GT
Popular choices:
GeForce G200
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 G200 is on rank 357, so the GeForce G200 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 G200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 9650M GT is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (1 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce G200.
| Insight | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce G200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| 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 G200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce G200 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $25), it costs 40% less, resulting in a 65.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce G200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+65.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($25) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
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 G200
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 G200
The GeForce G200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 17 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1228 MHz to 1468 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 136 points. Launch price was $79.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 9650M GT scores 137 and the GeForce G200 reaches 136 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 9650M GT is built on Maxwell while the GeForce G200 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 640 (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 384 (GeForce G200). Raw compute: 1.306 TFLOPS (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce G200). Boost clocks: 1020 MHz vs 1468 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce G200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 137 | 136 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 640+67% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.306 TFLOPS+16% | 1.127 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1020 MHz | 1468 MHz+44% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40+67% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB+122% | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce G200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 G200 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 0.5 MB (GeForce G200) — the GeForce 9650M GT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce G200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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+300% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 10.1 (GeForce G200). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce G200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 G200). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP3 vs PureVideo HD (VP4). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,WMV9 (GeForce 9650M GT) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce G200).
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce G200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No NVENC (G96) | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP3 | PureVideo HD (VP4) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,WMV9 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 9650M GT draws 75W versus the GeForce G200's 30W — a 85.7% difference. The GeForce G200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 350W (GeForce G200). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 75.
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce G200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 30W-60% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 75-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 1.8 | 4.5+150% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 9650M GT launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $25, while the GeForce G200 launched at $299 and now averages $15. The GeForce G200 costs 40% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 5.5 (GeForce 9650M GT) vs 9.1 (GeForce G200) — the GeForce G200 offers 65.5% better value. The GeForce G200 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce 9650M GT | GeForce G200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-67% | $299 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25 | $15-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 5.5 | 9.1+65% |
| Codename | GM107 | GP108 |
| Release | October 27 2015 | May 17 2017 |
| Ranking | #671 | #641 |
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 G200
