AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 and AMD Radeon R9 M265X represent two distinctly different tiers of graphics hardware, separated by roughly a year of release timing and a significant gulf in raw compute resources. The GTX 960, built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, is a desktop-oriented part with 1024 shading units and a 112.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the R9 M265X is a mobile-focused GCN 1.0 chip with 640 shading units and a 64.00 GB/s memory bus. In the single benchmark where both were tested head-to-head — Geekbench OpenCL — the GTX 960 delivered 18,925 points against the R9 M265X’s 8,851, a 113.8% advantage. The average benchmark scores tell the same story: the GTX 960 averages 9,273 across all its tests, while the R9 M265X averages 8,851. The GTX 960 sits at the 45th percentile of all GPUs, and the R9 M265X at the 44th, a marginal ranking difference that belies the massive per-test performance gap.

The Verdict

The data overwhelmingly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 for any workload that stresses raw compute throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,925 is more than double the R9 M265X’s 8,851, and its average benchmark score of 9,273 exceeds the R9 M265X’s 8,851 by 4.8%. The GTX 960 also benefits from a broader feature set: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R9 M265X only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1), and it offers Vulkan 1.4 versus the AMD part’s Vulkan 1.2.170. For users building a desktop system with a dedicated graphics card, the GTX 960 is the only rational choice based on this data — it wins the sole head-to-head test decisively and has four benchmark results to its name, including Geekbench Metal (8,773), Vulkan (9,231), and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (162).

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X, however, is not without a niche. Its production status is end-of-life, and it lacks a launch MSRP, making it an older mobile component. Its lone benchmark score of 8,851 places it just 0.1% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon 550X in its nearest rival list, indicating it performs in line with entry-level workstation and mobile parts from its era. If a system already contains this GPU and the workload is limited to OpenCL compute, it can still deliver usable performance — but there is no scenario in the FACT PACK where the R9 M265X beats the GTX 960. The verdict is straightforward: choose the GTX 960 for desktop performance, and only consider the R9 M265X if you are constrained to a laptop with no upgrade path.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960 wins the only direct comparison available: Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 18,925 against 8,851, a 113.8% margin. This is its sole head-to-head victory, but it also wins in every other benchmark it was tested on, since the R9 M265X has no results for those tests. The GTX 960’s multi-API coverage — Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan, and 3DMark Steel Nomad — demonstrates its versatility across different compute frameworks. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,231 and Metal score of 8,773 are both above the R9 M265X’s OpenCL-only score, suggesting that even in scenarios where the AMD part could theoretically compete, the NVIDIA card’s higher raw throughput would likely dominate.

The R9 M265X’s only "win" is that it exists as a viable option for OpenCL workloads in mobile form factors where the GTX 960, a dual-slot desktop card with a 241 mm length, cannot physically fit. Its 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die make it a compact chip, though the GTX 960’s 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die offer more compute per square millimeter — 12.9M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm². In terms of API support, the R9 M265X matches the GTX 960 on OpenGL 4.6 but falls short on DirectX (12 11_1 vs 12 12_1) and Vulkan (1.2.170 vs 1.4). For pure OpenCL compute, the R9 M265X delivers 8,851 points, which is 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9,294) and 0.3% above the GTX 850M (9,302) in its rival list — but those are still below the GTX 960’s average of 9,273.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies. The GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die. Its transistor density is 12.9M / mm². The R9 M265X uses the Venus chip on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.2M / mm². The GTX 960’s larger transistor budget translates directly into more execution resources: 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs), versus the R9 M265X’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 60% advantage in shading units, a 60% advantage in TMUs, and a 100% advantage in ROPs.

Clock speeds further widen the gap. The GTX 960 runs at a base clock of 1127 MHz and a boost clock of 1178 MHz, while the R9 M265X operates at a base of 575 MHz and a boost of 625 MHz — roughly half the frequency. Combined with the resource advantage, the GTX 960 achieves a pixel rate of 37.70 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 75.39 GTexel/s, versus 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s for the AMD part. Floating-point performance tells the same story: the GTX 960 delivers 2.413 TFLOPS FP32, while the R9 M265X manages 800.0 GFLOPS — a 3x difference. Memory is another differentiator: both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 960’s memory runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for 112.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M265X’s memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for 64.00 GB/s.

The GTX 960 is a full desktop card with a 120 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. It offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The R9 M265X has no TDP listed, no slot width, no power connector, and no display output details, consistent with its mobile design. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces. The GTX 960 was released on 2015-01-21, succeeding the GeForce 700 series and preceding the GeForce 10 series, with a launch MSRP of 199 USD. The R9 M265X launched earlier on 2014-03-20, succeeding the Solar System series and preceding Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 scores 18,925 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8,851. The GTX 960 is 113.8% faster, more than doubling the AMD part’s performance.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 960 has an average benchmark score of 9,273 across four tests, while the R9 M265X averages 8,851 from a single OpenCL test. The GTX 960’s average is 4.8% higher.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The GTX 960’s higher feature level allows for more advanced rendering techniques.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specs for each card?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 960 achieves 112.2 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the R9 M265X’s 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 960’s memory clock is 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units, while the R9 M265X has 640. This 60% advantage, combined with higher clock speeds, explains the GTX 960’s dominance in compute benchmarks.

Q: Is the R9 M265X competitive with any of the GTX 960’s rivals?

A: The R9 M265X’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, with a delta of -0.1%, meaning they perform nearly identically. It is also 1.2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and 1.2% faster than the GTX 460 v2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The FACT PACK contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 scores 18,925, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8,851. The delta is 113.8%, meaning the GTX 960 is more than twice as fast. This result is consistent with the underlying hardware specifications: the GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units versus 640, a boost clock of 1178 MHz versus 625 MHz, and memory bandwidth of 112.2 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 960’s pixel rate of 37.70 GPixel/s and texture rate of 75.39 GTexel/s dwarf the R9 M265X’s 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s, respectively.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GTX 960’s average score of 9,273 places it just 0.2% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9,294) and 0.3% below the GTX 850M (9,302), while being 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9,221). The R9 M265X’s average of 8,851 puts it 0.1% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863) and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918), while being 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746) and 1.2% above the GTX 460 v2 (8,743). These rivalries show that the R9 M265X sits in a lower performance tier — its best rival comparison is to a mobile RTX 3050 A, which it edges by 1.2%, whereas the GTX 960’s closest rivals are all within 0.6% of its score, indicating a tightly clustered mid-range desktop segment. In every measurable way, the GTX 960 is the superior GPU, and the single head-to-head result confirms that with a 113.8% margin.