NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER represent two distinct generations of mobile and desktop graphics, separated by nearly five years of architectural evolution. The data available for direct comparison is limited to a single OpenCL benchmark, but that result, combined with the full specification sheets, paints a clear picture of a decisive generational leap. The GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms the GTX 960A in raw compute, memory bandwidth, and feature support, though the older card holds a niche as a low-power, embedded-oriented solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the dataset is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide victory for the newer card. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points, while the GTX 960A manages 11,998 points. This translates to a delta of -72.7% for the GTX 960A, meaning it delivers less than a third of the newer card's compute performance in this workload. The margin is so substantial that it dwarfs the differences seen within either card's own rival group.

Contextualizing the GTX 960A's score, it sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 11,998. Its nearest rivals in the database are surprisingly close: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 scores 11,960 (a 0.3% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 11,842 (1.3% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 scores 11,680 (2.7% difference). This clustering suggests that the GTX 960A's OpenCL result is highly competitive with those much more powerful discrete cards in this specific test, likely due to the nature of the workload or driver optimizations.

The GTX 1650 SUPER, despite having a lower overall percentile rank (50th) and a lower average benchmark score (11,047) than the GTX 960A, achieves a far higher OpenCL score. This discrepancy is explained by its benchmark suite, which includes many DirectX and PassMark tests that drag its average down. Its nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075, -0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, 1.5% delta), are far weaker in this specific OpenCL test, highlighting that the GTX 1650 SUPER's raw compute is in a different class. The GTX 960A's win count is zero, while the GTX 1650 SUPER claims all one head-to-head victories.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior product for virtually any compute-intensive task. Its OpenCL score of 43,875 is 265% higher than the GTX 960A's 11,998. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a complete generational overhaul in performance.

From a pure specification standpoint, the GTX 1650 SUPER doubles the shading units (1,280 vs 640), TMUs (80 vs 40), and ROPs (32 vs 16) of the GTX 960A. It also doubles the memory capacity to 4 GB and more than doubles the memory bandwidth to 192.0 GB/s from 80.19 GB/s. The boost clock is also significantly higher at 1725 MHz versus 1176 MHz. These combined factors explain the massive performance gap.

For anyone building a system today from these two options, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only logical choice. Its higher TDP of 100 W (versus 75 W) is a reasonable trade-off for the sheer performance increase. The GTX 960A, with its MXM form factor and lack of display outputs, is a specialized component for portable devices, not a general-purpose desktop GPU. The GTX 1650 SUPER, with its dual-slot design, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, and standard display outputs, is a drop-in solution for a desktop PC. Therefore, the verdict is simple: choose the GTX 1650 SUPER for its overwhelming performance advantage, unless the specific MXM form factor of the GTX 960A is a hard requirement.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every measurable category of performance. It wins on raw compute (FP32 at 4.416 TFLOPS vs 1.505 TFLOPS), texture fill rate (138.0 GTexel/s vs 47.04 GTexel/s), and pixel fill rate (55.20 GPixel/s vs 18.82 GPixel/s). It also wins decisively on memory: 4 GB of GDDR6 at 192.0 GB/s versus 2 GB of GDDR5 at 80.19 GB/s. The newer card even supports FP16 compute at 8.832 TFLOPS, a feature entirely absent from the GTX 960A's specifications.

The GTX 960A's only areas of advantage are its lower power draw (75 W vs 100 W) and its unique MXM module form factor. This makes it suitable for specific industrial or portable applications where space and power are at an absolute premium, and where the performance of the GPU is secondary to its physical footprint. In a standard desktop context, there is no scenario where the GTX 960A outperforms the GTX 1650 SUPER.

The GTX 1650 SUPER also wins on software compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 960A is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the newer card can fully utilize the latest graphical features in modern games and applications, whereas the older card is restricted to an older feature level.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 SUPER in OpenCL compared to the GTX 960A?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 960A scores 11,998. This represents a 72.7% delta, meaning the GTX 1650 SUPER is significantly faster, delivering roughly 3.6 times the performance.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s, whereas the GTX 960A has a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The newer card offers more than double the bandwidth.

Q: What are the main architectural differences between the two cards?

A: The GTX 960A is built on the Maxwell architecture using a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,870 million transistors. The GTX 1650 SUPER is based on the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 6,600 million transistors. The newer card also has a larger die size of 284 mm² compared to 148 mm².

Q: Does the GTX 960A support the same DirectX version as the GTX 1650 SUPER?

A: No. The GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The latter provides access to a newer feature set.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a higher transistor density of 23.2M / mm², compared to the GTX 960A's 12.6M / mm². This is a result of the more advanced 12 nm manufacturing process.

Q: What is the form factor difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 960A is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0), which is designed for laptops and other portable devices. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different architectural eras. The GTX 960A is based on the Maxwell architecture (chip GM107), fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. This is a mature, power-efficient design from 2015.

In contrast, the GTX 1650 SUPER utilizes the Turing architecture (chip TU116), manufactured on a more advanced 12 nm process, also at TSMC. This chip is substantially larger and more complex, containing 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, for a transistor density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The Turing architecture brings significant improvements in compute efficiency and feature support.

The most critical architectural difference visible in the data is the DirectX support. The GTX 960A is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), a feature level that lacks some of the advanced rendering techniques enabled by DirectX 12 (12_1), which the GTX 1650 SUPER supports. This is a hard limitation for the older card in modern software.

Furthermore, the GTX 1650 SUPER has a dedicated FP16 path, offering 8.832 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The GTX 960A does not list any FP16 performance, indicating it likely processes FP16 at a much slower, non-dedicated rate. This makes the newer card far more capable for compute workloads that can leverage half-precision math.

The memory subsystem also differs architecturally. The GTX 960A uses GDDR5 memory clocked at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the GTX 1650 SUPER uses GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The newer memory type is fundamentally faster and more efficient, contributing to the massive bandwidth advantage.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a comprehensive upgrade across the board for the GTX 1650 SUPER. The most fundamental difference is in core configuration: the GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The GTX 960A has exactly half of each: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Clock speeds also favor the newer card. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz. The GTX 960A operates at a lower 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost. This higher clock speed, combined with more cores, results in the GTX 1650 SUPER achieving a FP32 performance of 4.416 TFLOPS, nearly three times the GTX 960A's 1.505 TFLOPS.

Memory is another clear differentiator. The GTX 1650 SUPER comes with 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s. The GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 80.19 GB/s due to the slower memory clock. The newer card also has a higher pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s vs 18.82 GPixel/s) and texture rate (138.0 GTexel/s vs 47.04 GTexel/s).

Physical and power specifications also differ. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. It is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length. The GTX 960A has a lower TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors. It comes as an MXM Module, making its dimensions and power delivery dependent on the host device. The GTX 1650 SUPER offers standard display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the GTX 960A's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." Notably, the GTX 1650 SUPER had a launch MSRP of 159 USD, while the GTX 960A has no listed launch price.