NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M vs ATI Radeon X1650 PRO

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and ATI Radeon X1650 PRO 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 8 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• Around 57% higher core clock speed: 944 MHz vs 600 MHz
• 30.7x more texture fill rate: 73.6 GTexel / s vs 2.4 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 80 nm
• 8x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 256 MB
• Around 79% higher memory clock speed: 2500 MHz vs 1400 MHz
• 45x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3827 vs 85
• Around 43% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 344 vs 241

Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon X1650 PRO

• Around 14% lower typical power consumption: 44 Watt vs 50 Watt

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
GPU 2: ATI Radeon X1650 PRO

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3827 85
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	344 241

Compare specifications (specs)