GeForce 9700M GT vs GeForce GTX 1060

CPU

GPU

GeForce 9700M GT

2008Core: 500 MHz

GeForce GTX 1060

2016Core: 1607 MHzBoost: 1733 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

GeForce 9700M GT

150

327

0.0%

GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU

GeForce GTX 1060

180

10,064

+2977.7%

GeForce GTX 680

GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE

GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile

GeForce GTX TITAN Z

GeForce GTX 980 Ti

GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile

GeForce RTX 2080 Ti

GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile

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. The GeForce 9700M GT is positioned at rank #668 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9700M GT

#658

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

6620%

#660

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

6001%

#661

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

5985%

#665

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

5443%

#666

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

5405%

#668

GeForce 9700M GT

MSRP: $200|Avg: $40

100%

#669

Mobility Radeon X2500

MSRP: $50|Avg: $15

100%

#670

GeForce 9300 SE

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

100%

#671

GeForce 9800M GTX

MSRP: $300|Avg: $30

92%

#672

Radeon HD 7520G + 8750M Dual

MSRP: $250|Avg: $57

92%

#673

Mobility Radeon HD 4300 Serisi

MSRP: $49|Avg: $10

91%

#674

GeForce 505

MSRP: $99|Avg: $15

88%

#675

GeForce 9200M GE

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

88%

#676

Mobility Radeon. HD 5470

MSRP: $150|Avg: $25

87%

#677

Radeon HD 2600 XT

MSRP: $199|Avg: $40

87%

#678

GeForce 7500 LE

MSRP: $60|Avg: $15

87%

#679

GeForce 9650M GT

MSRP: $100|Avg: $25

84%

#680

GeForce 9650M GS

MSRP: $199|Avg: $20

83%

#681

GeForce 8400 SE

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

83%

#682

GeForce 8400M GT

MSRP: $50|Avg: $30

82%

#683

GeForce 9200M GS

MSRP: $100|Avg: $40

79%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1060 is significantly newer (2016 vs 2008). The GeForce GTX 1060 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce 9700M GT lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2977.7% higher G3D Mark score and 1100% more VRAM (6 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 9700M GT.

Insight	GeForce 9700M GT	GeForce GTX 1060
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2977.7%)	✅Leading raw performance (+2977.7%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / G9x (2007−2010))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+1100%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 1060 holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $60), it costs 33% less, resulting in a 1951.8% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce 9700M GT	GeForce GTX 1060
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+1951.8%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($40)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($60)

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.

GeForce 9700M GT Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1060 Benchmark Check

League of Legends

No prediction data available

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 9700M GT and GeForce GTX 1060

GeForce 9700M GT

The GeForce 9700M GT is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 15 2008. It features the G9x architecture. The core clock speed is 500 MHz. It has 224 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 65 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 327 points.

GeForce GTX 1060

The GeForce GTX 1060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1607 MHz to 1733 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,064 points. Launch price was $599.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce 9700M GT scores 327 versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 10,064 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 2977.7%. The GeForce 9700M GT is built on G9x while the GeForce GTX 1060 uses Pascal, both on 65 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 224 (GeForce 9700M GT) vs 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060).

Feature	GeForce 9700M GT	GeForce GTX 1060
G3D Mark Score	327	10,064+2978%
Architecture	G9x	Pascal
Process Node	65 nm	16 nm
Shading Units	224	2560+1043%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce 9700M GT	GeForce GTX 1060
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce 9700M GT comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1060 has 6 GB. The GeForce GTX 1060 offers 1100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 192-bit.

Feature	GeForce 9700M GT	GeForce GTX 1060
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	6 GB+1100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	192 GB/s
Bus Width	64-bit	192-bit+200%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 11.1 (FL10_0) (GeForce 9700M GT) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1060). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce 9700M GT	GeForce GTX 1060
DirectX	11.1 (FL10_0)	12+8%
OpenGL	3.3	4.5+36%
Max Displays	2	4+100%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VP3 (GeForce 9700M GT) vs NVENC (Pascal) (GeForce GTX 1060). Decoder: VP3 vs NVDEC (Pascal). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce 9700M GT) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060).

Feature	GeForce 9700M GT	GeForce GTX 1060
Encoder	VP3	NVENC (Pascal)
Decoder	VP3	NVDEC (Pascal)
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264,H.265/HEVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce 9700M GT draws 150W versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 180W — a 18.2% difference. The GeForce 9700M GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 9700M GT) vs 400W (GeForce GTX 1060). Power connectors: Legacy vs 6-pin.

Feature	GeForce 9700M GT	GeForce GTX 1060
TDP	150W-17%	180W
Recommended PSU	350W-13%	400W
Power Connector	Legacy	6-pin
Length	—	173mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	80°C	—
Perf/Watt	2.2	55.9+2441%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce 9700M GT launched at $200 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the GeForce GTX 1060 launched at $249 and now averages $60. The GeForce 9700M GT costs 33.3% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 8.2 (GeForce 9700M GT) vs 167.7 (GeForce GTX 1060) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 1945.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1060 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2008).