NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M vs AMD FirePro S9000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and AMD FirePro S9000 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 965M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• Around 5% higher core clock speed: 944 MHz vs 900 MHz
• 7x lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 350 Watt
• 7.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.59 vs 9.541
• 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 720.592 vs 275.278
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.903 vs 1.886
• Around 93% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 57.947 vs 30.049
• 2.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.296 vs 91.842

Reasons to consider the AMD FirePro S9000

• Around 37% higher texture fill rate: 100.8 GTexel / s vs 73.6 GTexel / s
• Around 75% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1024
• Around 37% better floating-point performance: 3,226 gflops vs 2,355 gflops
• 3x more maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 2 GB
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 5500 MHz vs 2500 MHz
• Around 32% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5059 vs 3821
• Around 63% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 561 vs 345
• Around 44% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3707 vs 2566
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 3337
• Around 44% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3707 vs 2566
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 3337

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
GPU 2: AMD FirePro S9000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3821 5059
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	345 561
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	67.59 9.541
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	720.592 275.278
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.903 1.886
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	57.947 30.049
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	223.296 91.842
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2566 3707
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3337 3357
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2566 3707
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3337 3357

Compare specifications (specs)