NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M 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, 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, 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).

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• Around 6% higher core clock speed: 999 MHz vs 944 MHz
• Around 40% higher boost clock speed: 1328 MHz vs 950 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• 2.8x more memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 2500 MHz
• Around 7% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4056 vs 3775
• Around 14% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6614 vs 5783
• Around 14% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6614 vs 5783
• Around 13% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2076 vs 1831

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M

• Around 39% higher texture fill rate: 73.6 GTexel / s vs 53.12 GTexel / s
• Around 60% higher pipelines: 1024 vs 640
• Around 39% better floating-point performance: 2,355 gflops vs 1,700 gflops
• Around 50% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 75 Watt
• Around 18% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 340 vs 289
• Around 16% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14739 vs 12690
• Around 72% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2566 vs 1491
• 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3337 vs 1341
• Around 72% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2566 vs 1491
• 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3337 vs 1341

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	4056 3775
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	289 340
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	12690 14739
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6614 5783
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1491 2566
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1341 3337
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6614 5783
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1491 2566
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1341 3337
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	2076 1831

Compare specifications (specs)