NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA GRID K520

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and NVIDIA GRID K520 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 7 month(s) later
• Around 47% higher core clock speed: 1096 MHz vs 745 MHz
• 3x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 225 Watt
• Around 53% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 245 vs 160
• Around 1% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10976 vs 10864
• 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 vs 20.97
• Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 vs 3.244
• Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 vs 42.277
• 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 vs 76.158

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GRID K520

• 44.7x more texture fill rate: 2x 102.0 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 47.04 GTexel / s
• 4.8x more pipelines: 2x 1536 vs 640
• 3.3x better floating-point performance: 2x 2,448 gflops vs 1,505 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2x 4 GB vs 4 GB
• 2x more memory clock speed: 5000 MHz vs 2500 MHz
• Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3516 vs 3370
• Around 34% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1063.784 vs 795.325
• Around 29% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6782 vs 5264
• Around 29% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6782 vs 5264

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GRID K520

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3370 3516
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	245 160
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	10976 10864
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	54.294 20.97
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	795.325 1063.784
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.692 3.244
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	51.794 42.277
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	174.513 76.158
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5264 6782
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3714 3713
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3354
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5264 6782
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3714 3713
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3354

Compare specifications (specs)