AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Comparison

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M clearly ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M265X, with a decisive victory in the only shared test and a higher overall average score. The GTX 960M is the faster mobile GPU by a substantial margin, though both parts are now end-of-life products from the same 28 nm era.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 11045, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851. This represents a 24.8% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a massive gap in a single-generation comparison. The data shows that in raw compute workloads, the GTX 960M is in a different performance class entirely.

This lead is corroborated by the average benchmark scores. The GTX 960M averages 9645 points across its two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), whereas the R9 M265X averages 8851 from its single OpenCL result. The 794-point difference in averages reinforces the head-to-head result, showing that the GTX 960M’s superiority is not a fluke of one workload but a consistent trend.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the GTX 960M’s OpenCL score of 11045 places it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals, based on average score, include the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9637 (0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9653 (0.1% behind). The R9 M265X, in contrast, sits in the 44th percentile with its 8851 average. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8863, which is just 0.1% faster. The delta between the two competing mobile parts is far larger than the deltas separating them from their respective nearest rivals, underscoring that this is not a close contest.

The GTX 960M also has a second benchmark result, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8245, which is lower than its OpenCL score but still a strong showing for a mobile GPU of this generation. The R9 M265X has no Vulkan result in the data, meaning the NVIDIA part demonstrates broader API support in practical testing.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but their internal designs diverge significantly. The GTX 960M uses the GM107 chip based on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, while the R9 M265X uses the Venus chip based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture. This architectural gap is the primary driver of the performance difference.

The transistor counts tell a story of design priorities. The GTX 960M packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.6M transistors per mm². The R9 M265X, by contrast, has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is larger and denser, giving it more hardware resources to work with.

Clock speeds dramatically favor the NVIDIA part. The GTX 960M runs at a base clock of 1097 MHz with a boost clock of 1176 MHz. The R9 M265X is significantly slower, with a base clock of just 575 MHz and a boost of 625 MHz. This nearly 2x clock advantage for the GTX 960M is the single largest architectural differentiator and explains most of its performance lead.

Memory configurations also differ. The GTX 960M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M265X has half the capacity at 2 GB, also GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but with lower bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The effective memory speed is 5 Gbps for the NVIDIA part versus 4 Gbps for the AMD part, contributing to the bandwidth gap.

The compute resources are nominally identical in count: both have 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). However, the clock speed disparity means the GTX 960M extracts vastly more throughput from these same resources. The pixel rate is 18.82 GPixel/s for the GTX 960M versus 10.00 GPixel/s for the R9 M265X. Texture rate is 47.04 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 1.505 TFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS, a near 2x advantage for NVIDIA.

API support is broadly similar, with both supporting DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 960M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M265X is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part also has a different bus interface (MXM-B 3.0) compared to the AMD part’s PCIe 3.0 x16, reflecting different laptop integration designs.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is the superior GPU for any compute-intensive task. Its 24.8% lead in OpenCL and its higher average benchmark score make it the clear choice for users who need mobile graphics performance. The GTX 960M wins the only head-to-head test, and there is no benchmark in the data where the R9 M265X comes out ahead.

The R9 M265X is not without merit, but its merits are limited to specific scenarios. Its lower 2 GB memory footprint and reduced bandwidth might be sufficient for older or less demanding titles, but the data shows no performance advantage over the GTX 960M in any measurable way. The R9 M265X’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, is only 0.1% faster, indicating that it sits in a lower performance tier altogether.

For a user choosing between these two, the GTX 960M is the only rational pick based on benchmark results. It offers roughly a quarter more performance in the tested workload, has double the memory capacity, and provides higher bandwidth. The only scenario where the R9 M265X might be preferable is if a specific laptop chassis only supports the AMD part, but from a pure performance standpoint, the GTX 960M dominates.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 11045, which is 24.8% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M265X’s 8851.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 640 shading units. However, the GTX 960M runs at a much higher clock speed (1097 MHz base vs 575 MHz base), leading to significantly higher FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The GTX 960M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the R9 M265X has 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 960M has 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth versus 64.00 GB/s for the R9 M265X, thanks to its higher effective memory speed of 5 Gbps versus 4 Gbps.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, the GTX 960M uses a larger die (148 mm²) with more transistors (1,870 million) than the R9 M265X (123 mm², 1,500 million).

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

A: The GTX 960M averages 9645 points, while the R9 M265X averages 8851 points. The GTX 960M also has a separate Vulkan score of 8245, which the R9 M265X lacks.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M: The GTX 960M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 24.8% margin. It also holds advantages in every architectural metric that matters for performance: pixel rate (18.82 GPixel/s vs 10.00 GPixel/s), texture rate (47.04 GTexel/s vs 25.00 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (1.505 TFLOPS vs 800.0 GFLOPS). Its 4 GB memory buffer is double the R9 M265X’s 2 GB, and its 80.19 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the AMD part’s 64.00 GB/s. For any workload that stresses the GPU, the GTX 960M is the winner.

AMD Radeon R9 M265X: The data shows no benchmark where the R9 M265X beats the GTX 960M. Its only potential advantage is indirect: it has a slightly higher percentile rank against its own nearest rivals (the Radeon Pro WX 5100 is just 0.1% ahead, and the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile is 1.2% behind). This suggests that in a system where the GTX 960M is unavailable, the R9 M265X is a competent, if slower, alternative. Its lower 2 GB memory might also be sufficient for lighter workloads, though the data does not quantify this advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | AMD Radeon R9 M265X |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM107 | Venus |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 900M | Gem System (R9 M200) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1097 MHz | 575 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | 625 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Effective Memory Speed | 5 Gbps | 4 Gbps |

| Pixel Rate | 18.82 GPixel/s | 10.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 47.04 GTexel/s | 25.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1.505 TFLOPS | 800.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2014-03-20 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | Polaris Mobile |