AMD Radeon R2 Graphics vs NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R2 Graphics and NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R2 Graphics
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- 2x more pipelines: 128 vs 64
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 6.4x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 96 Watt
- Around 51% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 68 vs 45
- 5.9x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 2.751 vs 0.465
- 10.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1282 vs 127
- 10.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1282 vs 127
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 27 February 2015 vs 21 February 2008 |
Pipelines | 128 vs 64 |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 96 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 68 vs 45 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.751 vs 0.465 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1282 vs 127 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1282 vs 127 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT
- 2.3x more core clock speed: 1625 MHz vs 700 MHz
- 3.7x more texture fill rate: 20.8 billion / sec vs 5.6 GTexel / s
- Around 16% better floating-point performance: 208 gflops vs 179.2 gflops
- Around 95% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 483 vs 248
- Around 65% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3161 vs 1912
- Around 65% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3161 vs 1912
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1625 MHz vs 700 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 20.8 billion / sec vs 5.6 GTexel / s |
Floating-point performance | 208 gflops vs 179.2 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 483 vs 248 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3161 vs 1912 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3161 vs 1912 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R2 Graphics
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R2 Graphics | NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 248 | 483 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 68 | 45 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7324 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.751 | 0.465 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 93.854 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.263 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 6.299 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 16.121 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 375 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1282 | 127 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1912 | 3161 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 375 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1282 | 127 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1912 | 3161 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R2 Graphics | NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Tesla |
Code name | Beema | G94 |
Launch date | 27 February 2015 | 21 February 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 1592 | 1591 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | |
Price now | $39.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 23.72 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 1625 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 179.2 gflops | 208 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 128 | 64 |
Texture fill rate | 5.6 GTexel / s | 20.8 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 96 Watt |
Transistor count | 930 million | 505 million |
CUDA cores | 64 | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI |
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Length | 9" (22.9 cm) | |
SLI options | 2-way | |
Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
Memory type | System Shared | GDDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | |
Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB / s | |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
SLI |