Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the database?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14,315 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998. This gives Intel a 19.3% lead in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How does the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel part sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14,352), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (14,277), NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373), and AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385). It is effectively at parity with all of them, with deltas ranging from -0.5% to +0.3%.

Q: What is the performance percentile of each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is in the 56th percentile of all GPUs, placing it above the midpoint. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is in the 51st percentile, which is just above the midpoint but notably lower than Intel’s position.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics has 768 shading units and 48 TMUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs. Intel leads in both counts.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics has 4 GB of LPDDR4X memory on a 128-bit bus, with 68.26 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has higher bandwidth, but Intel has double the capacity.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate and texture rate?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics achieves 39.60 GPixel/s and 79.20 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A achieves 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s. Intel leads by 110% in pixel rate and 68% in texture rate.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is the faster GPU in this comparison. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 14,315 versus 11,998 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A represents a 19.3% advantage, and it wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded. The Intel part also holds a higher percentile ranking (56th vs 51st) and outperforms the NVIDIA chip in every raw compute metric available: shading units, TMUs, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is the clear choice. It delivers a higher score with a lower power envelope (25 W vs 75 W) and a more modern process node (10 nm vs 28 nm). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A, however, offers higher memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s vs 68.26 GB/s) and a mature Maxwell architecture that may be preferred in certain legacy or driver-specific workloads, though the benchmark data does not demonstrate any such advantage.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics for superior compute performance and efficiency. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is only relevant if the portable MXM form factor or its specific memory configuration is a hard requirement, but the performance data does not favor it in any measured test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14,315, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998. The delta is 19.3% in favor of Intel, which is a substantial margin in GPU terms.

To contextualize this gap, consider the nearest rivals of each card. The Intel part sits within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (14,277) and within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385). This means the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is performing at a level comparable to those much larger discrete GPUs, despite its integrated form factor. Meanwhile, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (11,960) and 1.3% of the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842). The GTX 960A is closer to a mid-range 2016-era card in raw OpenCL performance.

The 19.3% delta between the two cards is consistent with the underlying specifications. The Intel part has 20% more shading units (768 vs 640), 20% more TMUs (48 vs 40), and 50% more ROPs (24 vs 16). The FP32 throughput is 2.534 TFLOPS for Intel versus 1.505 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, a 68% advantage. The pixel rate differential (39.60 vs 18.82 GPixel/s) and texture rate differential (79.20 vs 47.04 GTexel/s) further reinforce the Intel lead.

No benchmark favors the NVIDIA part. The wins tally is 1 for Intel and 0 for NVIDIA. In every measured metric, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is ahead, and the margin is significant enough to be meaningful in real-world compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field recorded in the database. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics uses a 10 nm process node from Intel, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A uses a 28 nm node from TSMC. The Intel die is 95 mm², whereas the NVIDIA die is 148 mm². The NVIDIA chip has 1,870 million transistors and a transistor density of 12.6M per mm²; the Intel chip has no transistor count recorded.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Intel base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 1650 MHz. The NVIDIA base clock is 1097 MHz with a boost of 1176 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a higher base clock but a much lower boost ceiling.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The Intel card has 4 GB of LPDDR4X memory running at 2133 MHz (4.3 Gbps effective), delivering 68.26 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), delivering 80.19 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but NVIDIA has higher bandwidth while Intel has double the capacity.

Compute resources differ in every category. Intel has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. NVIDIA has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Intel part achieves 39.60 GPixel/s and 79.20 GTexel/s, while NVIDIA achieves 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.534 TFLOPS for Intel and 1.505 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. The Intel card also lists FP16 performance at 5.069 TFLOPS (2:1), while the NVIDIA card has no FP16 figure.

Power and form factor differ as well. The Intel part has a TDP of 25 W and is listed as an IGP with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The NVIDIA part has a TDP of 75 W and is an MXM Module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The Intel interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses MXM-B (3.0). The Intel card has no display outputs, while the NVIDIA card is listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is built on Generation 12.1 architecture, branded as Xe Graphics, using the DG1 chip. It is part of the Xe Graphics generation and uses a 10 nm Intel process. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process.

The Intel architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level differs: Intel is at 12_1, while NVIDIA is at 11_0. This indicates the Intel part supports more advanced DirectX 12 features.

Both architectures lack dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, as neither field is populated in the database. The Intel part has a newer process node (10 nm vs 28 nm), which contributes to its higher clock boost (1650 MHz vs 1176 MHz) and lower TDP (25 W vs 75 W) despite having more compute units.

The Intel part is a discrete GPU packaged as an IGP, while the NVIDIA part is an MXM module designed for portable devices. The Intel card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, a more modern interface, while NVIDIA uses MXM-B (3.0). The production status for both is end-of-life. The Intel release date is 2020-10-30, with a successor listed as Alchemist. The NVIDIA release date is 2015-03-12, with its predecessor listed as GeForce 800A and no successor recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics wins in every benchmark category recorded. It has a 19.3% higher Geekbench OpenCL score, a higher percentile rank (56 vs 51), more shading units (768 vs 640), more TMUs (48 vs 40), more ROPs (24 vs 16), higher pixel rate (39.60 vs 18.82 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (79.20 vs 47.04 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (2.534 vs 1.505 TFLOPS). It also has double the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB) and a lower TDP (25 W vs 75 W).

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins in two narrow categories: memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s vs 68.26 GB/s) and base clock speed (1097 MHz vs 300 MHz). Neither of these translates into a benchmark victory, as the head-to-head data shows Intel winning the only test. The higher bandwidth is offset by the smaller memory capacity and lower overall compute throughput.

For compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL-based tasks, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is the definitive choice. Its performance rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (0.3% delta), AMD Radeon Vega 11 (-0.3% delta), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (-0.4% delta), which places it in a much higher performance class than the GTX 960A. The NVIDIA part, by contrast, is comparable to the GTX 1080 (0.3% delta) and RX 6500 XT (1.3% delta), but those are older or lower-tier cards in the current landscape.

For users constrained by power, the Intel part is also superior, with a 25 W TDP versus 75 W for NVIDIA. The Intel card’s IGP form factor and lack of display outputs suggest it is designed for embedded or integrated use cases, while the NVIDIA MXM module targets portable devices. In any benchmark-driven decision, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is the winner without qualification.