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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, and the results are decisively one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875 against 11045 for the GTX 960M, a delta of 297.2%. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a near-tripling of raw compute output as measured by this workload. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even wider gap, with the GTX 1650 SUPER scoring 50519 against 8245, a delta of 512.7%. That means the newer card delivers over six times the Vulkan score of the older mobile part, a staggering separation that reflects both architectural advancements and clock-speed gains.

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins both head-to-head tests, giving it 2 wins against 0 for the GTX 960M in the database's direct comparison set. Looking at aggregate performance, the GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11047 across all recorded tests, while the GTX 960M averages 9645. The gap in the average is smaller than the head-to-head deltas would suggest, which is worth noting: the average includes a broader mix of workloads, some of which may not scale as dramatically with the architectural differences between the two GPUs. Still, the direction is consistent.

The percentile data reinforces the separation. The GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 960M sits at the 46th percentile. That is a modest percentile gap, but it is important to contextualize: the database includes a wide range of modern and legacy parts, so a 4-point percentile difference can still correspond to a meaningful performance tier gap. The GTX 1650 SUPER's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 550 (average score 11075, delta -0.2%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (11088, -0.4%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (11088, -0.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10883, 1.5%). The GTX 960M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9637, 0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9653, -0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9665, -0.2%), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9716, -0.7%). In both cases, the nearest rivals are all within roughly 1.5% of the respective card's average score, indicating that the database's scoring places each card in a tightly clustered performance band.

Individual benchmark results for the GTX 1650 SUPER show a wide spread across API tests. In PassMark DirectX 9, it scores 148; in DirectX 10, 50; in DirectX 11, 73; and in DirectX 12, 45. The PassMark G3D score is 10179, while the G2D score is 749. The GPU compute score is 4477. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields a score of 352. These numbers give a sense of where the card is strongest and weakest: it clearly excels in legacy DirectX 9 workloads relative to its own DirectX 12 score, which is a common pattern for cards of this generation. The GTX 960M only has two recorded benchmarks in the database, both of which are the Geekbench tests already covered in the head-to-head comparisons. This limited data set means its average score of 9645 is derived from fewer data points, so direct comparisons should be read with that caveat in mind.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the faster GPU in every measured category. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average benchmark score, and sits at a higher percentile among all GPUs. The OpenCL delta of 297.2% and the Vulkan delta of 512.7% are not subtle; they represent a generational leap in compute capability. Anyone choosing between these two cards for a workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan should select the GTX 1650 SUPER without hesitation, as the data shows no scenario in which the GTX 960M comes out ahead.

That said, the GTX 960M is not without context. It is a mobile-specific part (MXM Module slot width, portable device dependent display outputs) with a 75 W TDP, while the GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot desktop card with a 100 W TDP and a 1x 6-pin power connector. The GTX 960M requires no external power connectors, which makes it suitable for systems where power delivery is constrained. But in pure performance terms, the database shows no advantage for the older card. The GTX 960M's nearest rivals in the database are all professional or workstation-oriented parts (Quadro K5000, Radeon Pro WX 2100, Quadro P4000, Tesla C2070), which suggests it occupies a different segment than the GTX 1650 SUPER, whose nearest rivals are consumer and prosumer parts.

The verdict is straightforward: the GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior choice for any application where raw GPU compute matters. The GTX 960M remains a functional part for legacy systems or power-constrained mobile setups, but the benchmark data does not support choosing it over the GTX 1650 SUPER in any performance-driven scenario.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture, using the TU116 chip, and is fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 960M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, also from TSMC, but on a 28 nm process. The transistor counts reflect this generational gap: the TU116 packs 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The GM107 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a density of 12.6M per mm². The newer card has roughly 3.5 times the transistor count and nearly double the density, which explains much of the performance difference.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz. The GTX 960M runs at 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost. The memory subsystem tells a similar story: the GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s and an effective memory clock of 12 Gbps. The GTX 960M also has 4 GB, but it is GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s and an effective clock of 5 Gbps. That is a 2.4x bandwidth advantage for the newer card, which directly impacts texture-heavy and memory-bound workloads.

The compute resources are also substantially different. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The GTX 960M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is exactly double the shading units, double the TMUs, and double the ROPs. The pixel rate for the GTX 1650 SUPER is 55.20 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s for the GTX 960M, and the texture rate is 138.0 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is 4.416 TFLOPS for the newer card versus 1.505 TFLOPS for the older one. The GTX 1650 SUPER also supports FP16 at 8.832 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the GTX 960M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Both cards support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the feature levels differ. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, while the GTX 960M is limited to feature level 11_0. This means the newer card can handle more advanced DirectX 12 features, which may matter for certain modern games and applications. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, while the GTX 960M uses MXM-B (3.0), reflecting its mobile design. The display outputs also differ: the GTX 1650 SUPER has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 960M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a launch MSRP of 159 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875, while the GTX 960M scores 11045, a delta of 297.2% in favor of the newer card.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50519 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 960M scores 8245, a delta of 512.7% in favor of the GTX 1650 SUPER.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 1650 SUPER supports feature level 12_1, while the GTX 960M is limited to feature level 11_0.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth with GDDR6 memory, while the GTX 960M has 80.19 GB/s with GDDR5 memory.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the GTX 960M wins?

A: In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the GTX 960M does not win any tests. The GTX 1650 SUPER wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan comparisons.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, while the GTX 960M has a TDP of 75 W and requires no external power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its 297.2% OpenCL advantage and 512.7% Vulkan advantage make it the clear choice for compute-heavy applications that use those APIs. The higher shading unit count (1280 versus 640), doubled TMUs (80 versus 40), and doubled ROPs (32 versus 16) give it a structural advantage in rasterization and texture processing. The 192.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s means it can feed those units faster, reducing bottlenecks in high-resolution texture streaming and post-processing effects. Its 4.416 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 1.505 TFLOPS makes it roughly three times faster in raw shader math, which aligns with the OpenCL delta.

The GTX 960M has no benchmark wins in the database, but it does have attributes that matter outside raw performance. Its 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for systems where power delivery is limited. Its MXM Module form factor and portable device dependent display outputs mean it is designed for laptops and other compact systems, whereas the GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. If the use case is a legacy mobile workstation or a laptop that requires a specific MXM module, the GTX 960M is the only one of the two that fits that physical constraint.

For gaming and general desktop GPU workloads, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior choice across the board. Its DirectX 12_1 feature level support, higher pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (138.0 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s) give it advantages in both modern and legacy API workloads. The PassMark results for the GTX 1650 SUPER show strong DirectX 9 performance (148) relative to its DirectX 12 score (45), indicating it handles older titles particularly well. The GTX 960M lacks recorded PassMark data, so its behavior in those specific tests is not measured in the database.

The percentile placement tells the final story: the GTX 1650 SUPER at the 50th percentile sits just above the midpoint of all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 960M at the 46th percentile sits slightly below. In practical terms, the newer card is a mid-tier desktop GPU that can handle a wide range of modern workloads, while the older card is a legacy mobile part that is now clearly outclassed by even entry-level contemporary desktop offerings. The data does not show a single scenario where the GTX 960M outperforms the GTX 1650 SUPER, so the use-case split is not about performance at all. It is about form factor, power constraints, and system compatibility. For anyone who can physically install the GTX 1650 SUPER, the recorded measurements say it is the better GPU. For anyone locked into an MXM-based mobile platform, the GTX 960M remains a functional, if dated, option.