AMD Radeon HD 8950M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and AMD Radeon HD 8950M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different architectural generations, yet benchmark data shows a consistent, if modest, performance edge for the NVIDIA part. Across the two head-to-head benchmark tests, the GTX 965M secures victory in both, with its largest margin appearing in the Vulkan API test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a clear, two-test sweep for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 965M scores 14,509 points against the Radeon HD 8950M’s 13,772 points. This yields a 5.4% delta in favor of the NVIDIA GPU. While this is a measurable lead, it is not a transformative one; the performance gap is more indicative of a generational refinement than a complete overhaul in compute throughput. The margin widens noticeably in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the GTX 965M scores 14,299 points compared to the AMD part’s 12,979 points. This 10.2% advantage is the most decisive difference between the two, suggesting that the Maxwell 2.0 architecture handles the lower-level API overhead more efficiently than GCN 2.0. When averaging both scores, the GTX 965M achieves a mean benchmark score of 14,404, placing it at the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon HD 8950M’s average of 13,376 sits at the 54th percentile.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides further context for these scores. The GTX 965M’s average of 14,404 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11’s 14,385, showing a delta of just 0.1%. It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373) by 0.2% and the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14,352) by 0.4%. The Radeon HD 8950M, meanwhile, trades blows with its own set of competitors; its 13,376 average is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356) and the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354), but 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407). These rival comparisons suggest that while the GTX 965M holds a clear lead over the HD 8950M, both chips are operating in a performance tier where small architectural differences translate into single-digit percentage swings. The Vulkan delta of 10.2% is the outlier, indicating that API-specific optimization is a significant differentiator here.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M wins the OpenCL test with a score of 14,509, which is 5.4% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8950M’s score of 13,772.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The gap is larger in Vulkan. The GTX 965M scores 14,299, while the HD 8950M scores 12,979, giving the NVIDIA part a 10.2% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M has an average benchmark score of 14,404, whereas the AMD Radeon HD 8950M has an average score of 13,376.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The GTX 965M sits at the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 8950M sits at the 54th percentile, indicating that both are near the middle of the performance distribution.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8950M has a higher memory bandwidth at 88.00 GB/s, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M’s 80.19 GB/s, despite both using 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the AMD GPU outperform the NVIDIA GPU in any benchmark?

A: No. According to the head-to-head data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests, resulting in 2 wins for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, utilizing the GM204 chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a large chip, containing 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon HD 8950M uses the GCN 2.0 architecture with the Saturn chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. However, the Saturn die is significantly smaller at 160 mm² and houses only 2,080 million transistors, resulting in a nearly identical transistor density of 13.0M per mm². The sheer physical size difference—398 mm² versus 160 mm²—highlights that NVIDIA’s design dedicates far more silicon to the GPU, yet the AMD chip manages to achieve comparable memory bandwidth.

The compute configuration further separates them. The GTX 965M is equipped with 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The HD 8950M counters with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This disparity in ROP count is substantial and explains why the pixel fill rate differs so much: the GTX 965M achieves 30.40 GPixel/s, while the HD 8950M only manages 17.20 GPixel/s. Similarly, texture rate favors the NVIDIA part at 60.80 GTexel/s versus 51.60 GTexel/s. The floating-point performance, measured in FP32, also leans toward NVIDIA, with the GTX 965M delivering 1.946 TFLOPS compared to 1.651 TFLOPS from the AMD chip. In terms of API support, the GTX 965M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 8950M supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and an older Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

Beyond the architectural core, several key specifications diverge between these two mobile GPUs. The most prominent difference lies in the clock speeds: the NVIDIA GTX 965M has a base clock of 924 MHz and a boost clock of 950 MHz, whereas the AMD Radeon HD 8950M has no base or boost clock listed in the data. Memory clocks also differ, with the GTX 965M running at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, while the HD 8950M runs at 1375 MHz with 5.5 Gbps effective speed. This higher memory clock, combined with the same 128-bit bus, gives the AMD part a bandwidth advantage of 88.00 GB/s over the NVIDIA part’s 80.19 GB/s.

The power profile is another notable difference. The AMD Radeon HD 8950M has a listed thermal design power (TDP) of 100 W, while the NVIDIA GTX 965M’s TDP is not specified in the data. Both use an MXM Module slot width, but the bus interface differs: the GTX 965M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the HD 8950M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The NVIDIA GPU also lists "None" for power connectors, while the AMD part’s power connector details are not provided. In terms of release timing, the GTX 965M was released on 2015-01-08, nearly two years after the AMD Radeon HD 8950M’s release on 2013-05-13. The generations reflect this timeline, with the GTX 965M belonging to the GeForce 900M series and the HD 8950M belonging to the Solar System (HD 8900M) generation. The predecessor and successor lines also differ: the GTX 965M succeeds the GeForce 800M and is succeeded by GeForce 10 Mobile, while the HD 8950M succeeds "London" and is succeeded by "Gem System". The transistor count difference is stark, with the NVIDIA chip packing 5,200 million transistors versus 2,080 million for AMD, directly correlating to the die size discrepancy.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M is the superior performer in this comparison. It wins both head-to-head tests, achieving a 5.4% lead in OpenCL and a decisive 10.2% lead in Vulkan. The data suggests that users prioritizing lower-level API performance, as seen in modern game engines, would find the GTX 965M to be the more capable option. Its higher shading unit count, doubled ROP count, and superior pixel and texture rates point to a GPU that is more robust for graphics-intensive workloads. The 56th percentile ranking against all GPUs, compared to the HD 8950M’s 54th percentile, reinforces this assessment. For those who require maximum compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan scenarios, the GTX 965M is the clear choice.

However, the AMD Radeon HD 8950M is not without its merits. It offers a higher memory bandwidth of 88.00 GB/s, which could be beneficial in memory-bound scenarios, and it does so while being built on a much smaller die with fewer transistors. The data also shows that its average benchmark score of 13,376 is within 0.4% of several modern competitors, indicating that it remains competitive in its tier. The HD 8950M’s lower transistor count and die size might also suggest a more power-efficient design per transistor, though the TDP is listed at 100 W. Ultimately, the choice depends on whether the user prioritizes the raw compute and API-specific advantages of the GTX 965M, or the higher memory bandwidth and potentially different power characteristics of the HD 8950M. Given the benchmark results, the GTX 965M holds the performance crown, but the HD 8950M remains a viable option for specific use cases where bandwidth and the AMD ecosystem are favored.