AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M. Across the two common benchmark tests, the AMD workstation card wins both, and the margins are substantial enough to define the entire comparison.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 scores 58,213, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M manages 14,509. That is a 301.2% advantage for the AMD card. To frame that differently, the Radeon PRO W7500 delivers roughly four times the OpenCL compute output of the GTX 965M. The older NVIDIA part, built for laptops in the GeForce 900M generation, simply cannot keep pace with modern workstation silicon in general-purpose compute workloads.

The Vulkan results widen the gap even further. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 posts 68,634, versus 14,299 for the GTX 965M, a 380% delta. This is the largest win in the head-to-head set, and it indicates that the Radeon PRO W7500 scales exceptionally well under modern graphics APIs. Vulkan is designed to reduce driver overhead and expose hardware capabilities more directly, and the Radeon PRO W7500 clearly benefits from its newer architecture.

The aggregate benchmark picture reinforces this. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has an average benchmark score of 16,415, while the GTX 965M averages 14,404. Interestingly, the GTX 965M sits at the 56th percentile of all GPUs in the database, and the Radeon PRO W7500 sits at the 59th percentile, so both cards occupy similar positions in the overall distribution despite the massive head-to-head deltas. That is because the GTX 965M's average includes only its two recorded tests, while the Radeon PRO W7500's average spans nine benchmarks, including several legacy DirectX tests where it scores much lower relative to its peak.

Looking at the Radeon PRO W7500's nearest rivals, it sits in a tight cluster. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell averages 16,408, essentially identical with a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is 0.3% behind, and the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is 0.4% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 leads by 0.5%. This tells us the Radeon PRO W7500 lands right in the middle of a very competitive performance band, despite being a low-profile workstation card.

For the GTX 965M, its nearest rivals are all older or lower-tier parts. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 is 0.1% ahead, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN is 0.2% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Vega 11 is 0.4% ahead. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics trails by 0.6%. The GTX 965M is therefore competitive with a range of older integrated and discrete solutions, but it is nowhere near the modern workstation class.

The data is unambiguous: in every recorded common test, the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 outclasses the GTX 965M by a factor of roughly three to four. There is no benchmark in this dataset where the NVIDIA part wins.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 scores 58,213, versus 14,509 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, which is a 301.2% advantage.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins with a score of 68,634, compared to 14,299 for the GTX 965M, a 380% lead.

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

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 averages 16,415 across all recorded tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M averages 14,404.

Q: Where does each card rank among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 sits at the 59th percentile of all GPUs, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M sits at the 56th percentile.

Q: Does the GTX 965M have any benchmark where it beats the W7500?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins both tests, taking 2 wins to 0.

Q: How does the Radeon PRO W7500 compare to its closest rivals?

A: It is effectively tied with the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (0% delta), and within half a percent of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins every benchmark category recorded in the head-to-head comparison. Its dominance is most pronounced in Vulkan, where the 380% lead suggests the RDNA 3.0 architecture extracts far more performance from modern low-level APIs. For compute-heavy workloads such as OpenCL, the 301.2% advantage indicates a massive generational leap in raw throughput. This makes the Radeon PRO W7500 the clear choice for any application that relies on general-purpose GPU compute, modern graphics APIs, or workstation-class rendering tasks.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, by contrast, has no recorded wins in this comparison. Its place is in the historical context of mobile gaming laptops from the GeForce 900M generation. The GTX 965M was designed for a time when 2 GB of VRAM and 1.946 TFLOPS of FP32 performance were acceptable for 1080p gaming. In the current database, it holds its own against other legacy parts like the GeForce GTX TITAN and the RX Vega 11, but it is not in the same performance class as the Radeon PRO W7500.

For users deciding between these two, the use case split is essentially binary. The Radeon PRO W7500 is the only viable option for professional workloads, modern APIs, and any task that benefits from high compute throughput. The GTX 965M is only relevant in the context of an older laptop that still has one installed, and even then, the benchmark data shows it is dramatically outclassed by a modern entry-level workstation card.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, also on a 128-bit bus, but with only 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 3.2x difference in memory bandwidth, which directly impacts texture streaming and high-resolution workloads.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The Radeon PRO W7500 runs at a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The GTX 965M runs at a base clock of 924 MHz and a boost clock of 950 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Radeon PRO W7500's memory clock is more than triple the effective rate of the GTX 965M.

The compute units tell a similar story. The Radeon PRO W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The GTX 965M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD card also features 28 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA card has none. The FP32 throughput is 12.19 TFLOPS for the Radeon PRO W7500 versus 1.946 TFLOPS for the GTX 965M, a 6.3x difference. The Radeon PRO W7500 also supports FP16 at 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the GTX 965M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and physical specifications diverge completely. The Radeon PRO W7500 is a 70 W, single-slot card measuring 216 mm in length, 115 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. It requires no power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU. The GTX 965M is an MXM module with no stated TDP, no dimensions, and no power connectors listed. The AMD card connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX 965M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs differ as well, with the Radeon PRO W7500 offering 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the GTX 965M being portable device dependent, meaning displays are determined by the host laptop.

The bus interface is another indicator of intent. PCIe 4.0 x8 on the Radeon PRO W7500 is a modern workstation standard, while MXM-B (3.0 on the GTX 965M is a mobile module form factor designed for laptops. The production status also differs, with the Radeon PRO W7500 listed as active, while the GTX 965M is end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is a full two generations. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with the codename Hotpink Bonefish chip, part of the Radeon Pro Navi generation (Navi III series). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M is built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, part of the GeForce 900M generation from NVIDIA.

The process node difference is stark on paper. AMD uses a 6 nm process node at TSMC fabricated at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, for a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². NVIDIA uses a 28 nm process node at TSMC, with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, for a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The GTX 965M actually has a physically larger die than the Radeon PRO W7500, but it packs less than half as many transistors onto it, which is a direct result of the older, denser process technology.

API support also differs meaningfully here. The Radeon PRO W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, as well as Vulkan 1.4 on the GTX 965M supports DirectX 12 (12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 on the GTX 965M.

The release timeline shows how much time separates them. The GTX 965M was released on January 8, 2015, with a predecessor of GeForce 800M and a successor of GeForce 10 Mobile. The Radeon PRO W7500 was released on August 2, 2023, with a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega and no successor listed. The 8.5 years between them explain why every benchmark favors the newer card so heavily.

Ray tracing support is another clear separators, with the Radeon W7500 featuring 28 dedicated ray tracing cores on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, no tensor cores listed on the GTX 965M.

The transistor count differentials, the memory type, and the absence of ray tracing on the GTX 965M, and the fact that the GTX 965M has no tensor cores while the Radeon PRO W7500 also lacks tensor cores, all point to a fundamental divergence in target use. These architectural differences are not subtle, they are the entire reason the head-to-head benchmarks look the way they do.