NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M vs AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM 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) 0 month(s) later
• Around 11% higher core clock speed: 944 MHz vs 850 MHz
• Around 3% higher boost clock speed: 950 MHz vs 925 MHz
• 4x lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 200 Watt
• Around 36% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3797 vs 2793
• Around 4% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14360 vs 13791
• Around 68% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.59 vs 40.311
• Around 17% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.903 vs 3.328
• Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.296 vs 181.508
• Around 32% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5783 vs 4396
• Around 32% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5783 vs 4396

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM

• Around 41% higher texture fill rate: 103.6 GTexel / s vs 73.6 GTexel / s
• Around 75% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1024
• Around 41% better floating-point performance: 3,315 gflops vs 2,355 gflops
• Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 3 GB vs 2 GB
• 2x more memory clock speed: 5000 MHz vs 2500 MHz
• Around 9% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 366 vs 337
• Around 10% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.334 vs 720.592
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.205 vs 57.947
• Around 44% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3705 vs 2566
• Around 44% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3705 vs 2566

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3797 2793
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	337 366
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	14360 13791
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	67.59 40.311
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	720.592 795.334
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.903 3.328
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	57.947 64.205
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	223.296 181.508
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5783 4396
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2566 3705
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3337 3348
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5783 4396
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2566 3705
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3337 3348

Compare specifications (specs)