NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 1 month(s) later
• Around 15% higher boost clock speed: 1245 MHz vs 1085 MHz
• 1606.5x more texture fill rate: 69.72 GTexel/s vs 43.4 GTexel / s
• Around 40% higher pipelines: 896 vs 640
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
• 2.1x lower typical power consumption: 35 Watt vs 75 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• 2.6x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6160 vs 2411
• 2.8x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 35607 vs 12495
• 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 129.441 vs 49.772
• Around 38% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1047.138 vs 757.295
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.882 vs 3.67
• Around 58% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 78.563 vs 49.875
• Around 93% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 346.498 vs 179.567
• Around 71% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8824 vs 5157
• Around 71% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8824 vs 5157

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A

• Around 1% higher core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 1020 MHz
• 2.5x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective)
• Around 94% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 631 vs 326
• Around 57% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 5834 vs 3707
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 7859 vs 3352
• Around 57% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 5834 vs 3707
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 7859 vs 3352

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6160 2411
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	326 631
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	35607 12495
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	129.441 49.772
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1047.138 757.295
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7.882 3.67
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	78.563 49.875
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	346.498 179.567
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8824 5157
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3707 5834
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3352 7859
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8824 5157
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3707 5834
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3352 7859

Compare specifications (specs)