NVIDIA
GeForce 9500 GT vs Radeon Pro W6800
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
Pro W6800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared 9500 GT and Pro W6800 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗9500 GT outperforms Pro W6800 by ~10% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+10%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: GeForce 9500 GT (~10%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider 9500 GT
- Lower stated power consumption
- Lower recorded market price
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider Pro W6800
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.1 · FSR
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
AMDPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3954
10072
10051
13100
Graphics card ranking
Positions 80–85of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 9500 GT
99 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
GeForce 9500 GT
Price $35.95Based on catalog performance per unit of current market price, not measured FPS.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
39
54Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
34
45Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
32
43Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
72
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
57Better
52
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
Length
DirectX
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
Architecture
Thickness
Compute API
Launch priceBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Recommended PSUBetter
Die sizeBetter
Memory cacheBetter
Transistor countBetter
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Vulkan
DisplayPort
Upscaling
HDMI
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares 9500 GT and Pro W6800 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
9500 GTPro W6800
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
197 FPS
221 FPS
1080p Ultra
138 FPS
155 FPS
1440p Ultra
74 FPS
121 FPS
4K Ultra
27 FPS
60 FPS
Counter-Strike 29500 GT197 FPSPro W6800221 FPS9500 GT138 FPSPro W6800155 FPS9500 GT74 FPSPro W6800121 FPS9500 GT27 FPSPro W680060 FPS
Cyberpunk 20779500 GT127 FPSPro W6800143 FPS9500 GT109 FPSPro W6800123 FPS9500 GT54 FPSPro W680088 FPS9500 GT18 FPSPro W680040 FPS
Forza Horizon 59500 GT160 FPSPro W6800180 FPS9500 GT104 FPSPro W6800117 FPS9500 GT67 FPSPro W6800109 FPS9500 GT39 FPSPro W680088 FPS
Hogwarts Legacy9500 GT104 FPSPro W6800117 FPS9500 GT87 FPSPro W680097 FPS9500 GT48 FPSPro W680078 FPS9500 GT18 FPSPro W680041 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100395432%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100326467%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100326771%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 10013100154%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001007233%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100277594%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100287288%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100326771%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 1002479107%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100316875%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX10.012.2
VulkanNot supported1.4
OpenGL3.34.6
UpscalingNot supportedFSR
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 2.1
Architecture and release
ArchitectureTeslaRDNA 2.0
Process node65 nm7 nmBetter
Release date20082021
Device classDesktopProf
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count314 million26800 millionBetter
Die size144 mm²Better520 mm²
Shader units / cores323840Better
Base clock600 MHz2075 MHzBetter
Boost clock600 MHz2320 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 4x16
LengthVaries by board267 mm
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Recommended PSU250 WBetter600 W
Power connectorNone6+8 pin
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 2.1
DisplayPortBoard dependentDisplayPort 1.4a
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors36
Max resolution2560 × 16007680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM512 MB GDDR3Better32 GB GDDR6
Memory typeGDDR3GDDR6
Memory bus128 bit256 bitBetter
TFLOPS0.09617.83Better
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 70
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (6)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 9500 GT or Pro W6800?+
9500 GT has the higher overall gaming score, while 9500 GT offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
9500 GT is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
9500 GT is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
9500 GT offers more overall performance, while 9500 GT offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
9500 GT is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
9500 GT is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
9500 GT leads in combined 1440p performance. 9500 GT can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
9500 GT is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
9500 GT is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
9500 GT is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to 9500 GT if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.