NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 represent two very different eras and market segments of NVIDIA's GPU history, yet the recorded benchmark data places them remarkably close in overall standing. Both cards sit in the middle of the historical performance distribution, with percentile scores of 48 and 46 respectively against all GPUs in the database. The head-to-head data shows the Maxwell-based mobile module winning the single shared benchmark by a decisive margin, while the older Fermi flagship-derivative retains clear advantages in memory subsystem design and render output hardware. Both parts are end-of-life, and neither was built for the same job, which makes this comparison a useful case study in how GPU architecture evolved across the gap between the GeForce 400 and GeForce 900A generations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one common test between these two cards, and it produces an unambiguous result. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the GTX 950A scores 10273 against 9294 for the GTX 465, a delta of 10.5 percent in favor of the Maxwell-based part. That is a substantial gap in a comparison where the two cards' overall percentile placements differ by only two points, and it indicates the 950A converts its newer architecture into a clear compute throughput advantage.

Context from each card's nearest rivals sharpens the picture. The GTX 950A's score of 10273 puts it within touching distance of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10362, just 0.9 percent ahead, and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 at 10400, 1.2 percent ahead. It sits 2 percent below the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10481 and 2 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375 at 10070. In other words, the 950A competes in a cluster that includes parts from far newer product lines, an impressive standing for a 75-watt MXM module.

The GTX 465's score of 9294 places it in an equally tight rival cluster, but a rung lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M scores 9302, only 0.1 percent ahead. The AMD Radeon R7 M380 scores 9313, 0.2 percent ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is listed at 9273, 0.2 percent behind, and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 sits at 9221, 0.8 percent behind. The spread across this entire rival group is under two percent, so the GTX 465 is locked firmly into its tier, and the 10.5 percent deficit to the 950A is larger than any gap within either card's immediate neighborhood.

The theoretical specifications reinforce the compute result. The GTX 950A delivers 1438.7 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput against 855.4 GFLOPS for the GTX 465, roughly 1.7 times the raw shader compute. Texture fill rate also favors the newer card, 44.96 GTexel/s versus 26.75 GTexel/s, a lead of about 1.7 times that tracks the compute advantage almost exactly. Pixel fill rate favors the 950A as well at 17.98 GPixel/s versus 13.38 GPixel/s, though by a narrower margin of roughly 1.3 times.

The GTX 465 does win one specification contest decisively: memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 subsystem delivers 102.7 GB/s across a 256-bit bus, more than three times the 32.03 GB/s managed by the 950A's 128-bit DDR3 configuration. This is the single largest hardware advantage on the older card's side of the ledger, and it partially explains why the benchmark gap is 10.5 percent rather than the 70 percent suggested by compute and texture rates. Whether that bandwidth advantage translates into real-world wins depends on workload, but on paper it is the GTX 465's strongest asset.

Architecture Differences

The generational gap between these parts is wide. The GTX 465 is a Fermi-architecture product from the GeForce 400 generation, built on the GF100 chip at TSMC's 40 nm node. It packs 3100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The GTX 950A is a Maxwell-architecture part from the GeForce 900A generation, built on the GM107 chip at 28 nm, also fabbed by TSMC. It uses 1870 million transistors in a 148 mm² die for a density of 12.6M per mm², more than double the GTX 465's density.

The efficiency story follows directly from those numbers. The 950A achieves its higher benchmark score with roughly 60 percent of the transistor count on less than a third of the die area, while consuming 75 watts with no power connectors, drawing everything it needs through its MXM-B (3.0) slot. The GTX 465 is rated at 200 watts, requires two 6-pin PCIe power connectors, occupies a dual-slot footprint, and carries a suggested PSU rating of 550 watts. The newer card delivers more measured performance at well under half the power envelope.

Core counts and organization differ in instructive ways. The 950A has 640 shading units against 352 for the GTX 465, but the older card actually leads in two hardware counts: 44 texture mapping units versus 40, and 32 render output units versus 16. The ROP advantage is what keeps the GTX 465's pixel rate competitive at 13.38 GPixel/s despite lacking modern clock behavior. Notably, the GTX 465 has no recorded base or boost clock, reflecting an era before dynamic frequency scaling, while the 950A lists a 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost clock.

Memory philosophies diverge sharply. The GTX 465 pairs 1024 MB of GDDR5 at 802 MHz, 3.2 Gbps effective, over a 256-bit bus for its 102.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The 950A pairs 2 GB of DDR3 at 1001 MHz, 2 Gbps effective, over a 128-bit bus for just 32.03 GB/s. The newer card doubles capacity while the older card triples bandwidth.

Software support also favors the 950A. Both report DirectX 12 with feature level 11_0 and OpenGL 4.6, but only the 950A lists Vulkan support, at version 1.4. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores.

Form factor is the final and perhaps most decisive difference. The GTX 950A is an MXM module designed for portable devices, with display outputs described as portable-device dependent. The GTX 465 is a desktop card on PCIe 2.0 x16 measuring 241 mm long, with two DVI outputs and one mini-HDMI 1.3a.

The Verdict

The data supports the GTX 950A for anyone choosing between these two parts on performance grounds. It wins the only shared benchmark by 10.5 percent, delivers substantially higher compute, texture, and pixel throughput, holds a slightly higher percentile placement at 48 versus 46, and competes against newer rivals like the RX 6500M and Tesla C2075 rather than the older cluster around the GTX 850M and Vega 8. It also doubles memory capacity to 2 GB and adds Vulkan 1.4 support.

The GTX 465 makes its case on different terms. Its 102.7 GB/s of bandwidth is more than three times that of the 950A, its 32 ROPs double the newer card's count, and its launch MSRP was 279 USD. It remains the choice where memory bandwidth and render output throughput matter more than shader compute, and where a desktop PCIe 2.0 x16 form factor with fixed display outputs is required. For everything else, the recorded data favors the Maxwell part decisively.

Specification Differences

• Chip: GM107 (GTX 950A) vs GF100 (GTX 465)
• Architecture: Maxwell vs Fermi
• Generation: GeForce 900A vs GeForce 400
• Process node: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Transistors: 1870 million vs 3100 million
• Die size: 148 mm² vs 529 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.6M/mm² vs 5.9M/mm²
• Clocks: 993 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost vs no listed base or boost; memory 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) vs 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective)
• Memory: 2 GB DDR3, 128-bit, 32.03 GB/s vs 1024 MB GDDR5, 256-bit, 102.7 GB/s
• Shading units: 640 vs 352
• TMUs: 40 vs 44
• ROPs: 16 vs 32
• Pixel rate: 17.98 GPixel/s vs 13.38 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 44.96 GTexel/s vs 26.75 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1438.7 GFLOPS vs 855.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W vs 200 W
• Slot width: MXM Module vs Dual-slot
• Power connectors: None vs 2x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: not listed vs 550 W
• Bus interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 2.0 x16
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a
• Vulkan: 1.4 vs not listed
• Length: not listed vs 241 mm (9.5 inches)
• Release date: 2015-03-12 vs 2010-05-30
• Predecessor: GeForce 800A vs GeForce 200
• Successor: not listed vs GeForce 500
• Launch MSRP: not listed vs 279 USD

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the shared benchmark? A: The GTX 950A wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10273 versus 9294 for the GTX 465, a 10.5 percent advantage.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth? A: The GTX 465, by a wide margin. Its 256-bit GDDR5 setup delivers 102.7 GB/s, compared to 32.03 GB/s from the GTX 950A's 128-bit DDR3 configuration.

Q: How do the two compare in power consumption? A: The GTX 950A is rated at 75 W and needs no power connectors, while the GTX 465 is rated at 200 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, and carries a suggested 550 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU is faster in raw compute? A: The GTX 950A leads in FP32 throughput at 1438.7 GFLOPS versus 855.4 GFLOPS, and in texture fill rate at 44.96 GTexel/s versus 26.75 GTexel/s.

Q: Do both cards support Vulkan? A: Only the GTX 950A lists Vulkan support, at version 1.4. The GTX 465 has no Vulkan entry. Both report DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their rival clusters compare? A: The GTX 950A's score sits within about 2 percent of the RX 6500M, Tesla C2075, R9 M375, and RX 550X. The GTX 465's score sits within about 1 percent of the GTX 850M, R7 M380, GTX 960, and Vega 8.