NVIDIA GeForce MX250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 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 MX250

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 7.5x lower typical power consumption: 10 Watt vs 75 Watt
• 2.4x more memory clock speed: 6008 MHz vs 2500 MHz

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

• Around 17% higher core clock speed: 1096 MHz vs 937 MHz
• Around 13% higher boost clock speed: 1176 MHz vs 1038 MHz
• Around 67% higher pipelines: 640 vs 384
• Around 41% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3366 vs 2392
• Around 2% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 245 vs 240
• Around 18% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10985 vs 9329
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 vs 46.992
• Around 49% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.325 vs 535.24
• Around 40% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 vs 2.64
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 vs 44.7
• Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 vs 141.816
• Around 31% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5264 vs 4027
• Around 31% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5264 vs 4027
• Around 39% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1231 vs 888

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2392 3366
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	240 245
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	9329 10985
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	46.992 54.294
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	535.24 795.325
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.64 3.692
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	44.7 51.794
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	141.816 174.513
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4027 5264
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3710 3714
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3358
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4027 5264
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3710 3714
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3358
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	888 1231

Compare specifications (specs)