GeForce G200 vs GeForce 9650M GT
GeForce G200
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 G200 is positioned at rank 357 and the GeForce 9650M GT is on rank 679, 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 G200
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9650M GT
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 G200 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 G200 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+65.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️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 G200 and GeForce 9650M GT
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.
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 G200 scores 136 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 G200 is built on Pascal while the GeForce 9650M GT uses Maxwell, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce G200) vs 640 (GeForce 9650M GT). Raw compute: 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce G200) vs 1.306 TFLOPS (GeForce 9650M GT). Boost clocks: 1468 MHz vs 1020 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 136 | 137 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 640+67% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.127 TFLOPS | 1.306 TFLOPS+16% |
| Boost Clock | 1468 MHz+44% | 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 G200 | 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)
The GeForce G200 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce 9650M GT has 1 GB. 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: 0.5 MB (GeForce G200) vs 2 MB (GeForce 9650M GT) — the GeForce 9650M GT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| 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 G200) vs 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce 9650M GT). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | 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 G200) vs No NVENC (G96) (GeForce 9650M GT). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP4) vs PureVideo HD VP3. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce G200) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,WMV9 (GeForce 9650M GT).
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No NVENC (G96) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP4) | PureVideo HD VP3 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,WMV9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce G200 draws 30W versus the GeForce 9650M GT's 75W — a 85.7% difference. The GeForce G200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce G200) vs 350W (GeForce 9650M GT). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-60% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | 168mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 4.5+150% | 1.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce G200 launched at $299 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce 9650M GT launched at $100 and now averages $25. The GeForce G200 costs 40% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.1 (GeForce G200) vs 5.5 (GeForce 9650M GT) — the GeForce G200 offers 65.5% better value. The GeForce G200 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 9650M GT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $299 | $100-67% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-40% | $25 |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.1+65% | 5.5 |
| Codename | GP108 | GM107 |
| Release | May 17 2017 | October 27 2015 |
| Ranking | #641 | #671 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce G200 and GeForce 9650M GT
