NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M 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 9 month(s) later
• 2x lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 100 Watt
• Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3792 vs 3450
• Around 21% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 335 vs 276
• Around 14% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14345 vs 12622
• Around 94% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.59 vs 34.836
• Around 28% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.903 vs 3.038
• 2.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.296 vs 81.753
• Around 37% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1831 vs 1336

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M

• Around 2% higher boost clock speed: 967 MHz vs 950 MHz
• Around 47% higher texture fill rate: 108.3 GTexel / s vs 73.6 GTexel / s
• Around 31% higher pipelines: 1344 vs 1024
• Around 10% better floating-point performance: 2,599 gflops vs 2,355 gflops
• Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 3 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 33% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 960.114 vs 720.592
• Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 59.57 vs 57.947
• Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6350 vs 5783
• Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3718 vs 2566
• Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6350 vs 5783
• Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3718 vs 2566

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3792 3450
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	335 276
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	14345 12622
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	67.59 34.836
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	720.592 960.114
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.903 3.038
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	57.947 59.57
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	223.296 81.753
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5783 6350
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2566 3718
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3337 3353
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5783 6350
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2566 3718
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3337 3353
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	1831 1336

Compare specifications (specs)