NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 represent two very different eras of NVIDIA's GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects a clear generational shift in performance and efficiency. While both cards occupy the same 53rd percentile among all GPUs, the GeForce GTX 950 demonstrates a decisive advantage in the available compute benchmark, despite being launched five years later with a significantly different architectural approach.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 scores 15,662 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 scores 13,300 points. This yields a delta of -15.1% for the GTX 480, meaning the GTX 950 is approximately 15% faster in this compute workload. The GTX 950 wins the sole head-to-head test, registering one win against zero for the GTX 480.

This 15.1% advantage is notable given the architectural differences at play. The GTX 480 is a larger, more power-hungry card with a wider memory bus, yet it falls behind in OpenCL compute. The GTX 950's higher shading unit count (768 vs. 480) likely contributes to its lead, as does its higher boost clock of 1188 MHz. The data suggests that raw compute throughput, as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, favors the newer Maxwell design.

When placed in the context of their nearest rivals, the GTX 480's average benchmark score of 13,300 sits just 0.2% below the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321), 0.4% below the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354), and 0.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356). The GTX 950's average score of 13,189 is actually lower than the GTX 480's, despite winning the head-to-head. This is because the GTX 950's average includes results from Metal and Vulkan benchmarks (7,172 and 16,734 respectively), which are not present for the GTX 480. The GTX 950's OpenCL score alone is what matters for direct comparison, and it is clearly superior.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The GTX 480 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 950 uses Maxwell 2.0 with the GM206 chip, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. This process shrink is significant: the GTX 480's die measures 529 mm² with 3,100 million transistors, while the GTX 950's die is just 228 mm² with 2,940 million transistors. The transistor density tells the story clearly: the GTX 480 packs 5.9 million transistors per mm², while the GTX 950 achieves 12.9 million per mm²—more than double.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The GTX 480 features 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, producing 105.8 GB/s. The GTX 480's wider bus gives it a 67% bandwidth advantage, but the GTX 950 compensates with a higher effective memory clock of 6.6 Gbps versus 3.7 Gbps. The GTX 950 also has a higher base clock (1024 MHz) and boost clock (1188 MHz), while the GTX 480's clocks are not specified in the data.

Compute resources favor the GTX 950 in shading units (768 vs. 480) and texture rate (57.02 GTexel/s vs. 42.06 GTexel/s), but the GTX 480 leads in ROPS (48 vs. 32) and pixel rate (21.03 GPixel/s vs. 38.02 GPixel/s). Wait, the pixel rate numbers show the GTX 950 is actually higher at 38.02 GPixel/s. Correcting that: the GTX 950 leads in pixel rate as well. The FP32 performance is also higher on the GTX 950 at 1.825 TFLOPS versus 1,345.0 GFLOPS.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The GTX 480 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The GTX 950 draws only 90 W, needs a 250 W PSU, and uses a single 6-pin connector. This is a 160 W difference in thermal design power.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available benchmark data, the GTX 950 wins in the only direct comparison (OpenCL, 15,662 vs. 13,300). It also wins on raw compute metrics: higher FP32 (1.825 TFLOPS vs. 1,345 GFLOPS), higher texture fill rate (57.02 vs. 42.06 GTexel/s), and higher pixel rate (38.02 vs. 21.03 GPixel/s). The GTX 950's higher shading unit count (768 vs. 480) gives it an advantage in parallel workloads that scale with shader count.

The GTX 480's strengths lie in memory bandwidth. Its 177.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 105.8 GB/s on the GTX 950 could benefit memory-intensive tasks, though the benchmark data does not include a test that isolates this advantage. The GTX 480 also has more ROPS (48 vs. 32), which historically helps with certain rasterization workloads, but again, no direct benchmark confirms this.

The GTX 950 also wins on connectivity and API support. It offers PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 on the GTX 480, and supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0) on the older card. The GTX 950 also has Vulkan 1.4 support, while the GTX 480 lists no Vulkan support. Display outputs favor the GTX 950 as well, with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2 versus the GTX 480's 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 scores 15,662 versus 13,300 for the GTX 480, making the GTX 950 about 15.1% faster in this test.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The GTX 950 has a transistor density of 12.9 million per mm², more than double the GTX 480's 5.9 million per mm², despite having a smaller die (228 mm² vs. 529 mm²).

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The GTX 480 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 950 has a TDP of 90 W and needs only a 250 W PSU.

Q: Does the GTX 480 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, in memory bandwidth: 177.4 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s on the GTX 950. It also has more ROPS (48 vs. 32) and a wider memory bus (384-bit vs. 128-bit).

Q: Which card supports newer APIs?

A: The GTX 950 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 480 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the release date gap between them?

A: The GTX 480 was released on 2010-03-25, and the GTX 950 was released on 2015-08-19, a gap of roughly five and a half years.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GF100 vs. GM206
• Architecture: Fermi vs. Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: GeForce 400 vs. GeForce 900
• Process Node: 40 nm vs. 28 nm
• Transistors: 3,100 million vs. 2,940 million
• Die Size: 529 mm² vs. 228 mm²
• Transistor Density: 5.9M / mm² vs. 12.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not specified vs. 1024 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not specified vs. 1188 MHz
• Memory Clock: 924 MHz / 3.7 Gbps effective vs. 1653 MHz / 6.6 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 1536 MB vs. 2 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 384 bit vs. 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 177.4 GB/s vs. 105.8 GB/s
• Shading Units: 480 vs. 768
• TMUs: 60 vs. 48
• ROPs: 48 vs. 32
• Pixel Rate: 21.03 GPixel/s vs. 38.02 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 42.06 GTexel/s vs. 57.02 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,345.0 GFLOPS vs. 1.825 TFLOPS
• TDP: 250 W vs. 90 W
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs. 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 600 W vs. 250 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs. PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a vs. 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs. 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: None vs. 1.4
• Length: 267 mm / 10.5 inches vs. 202 mm / 8 inches
• Release Date: 2010-03-25 vs. 2015-08-19
• Predecessor: GeForce 200 vs. GeForce 700
• Successor: GeForce 500 vs. GeForce 10
• Launch MSRP: 499 USD vs. 159 USD

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the GTX 950 for most use cases. It wins the only direct benchmark (OpenCL) by 15.1%, offers higher FP32 compute (1.825 TFLOPS vs. 1,345 GFLOPS), higher texture and pixel rates, and does so with a TDP of 90 W versus 250 W. The GTX 950 also supports newer APIs (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4) and has a smaller physical footprint (202 mm vs. 267 mm). For any workload where compute performance per watt matters, the GTX 950 is the superior choice.

The GTX 480 retains one clear advantage: memory bandwidth. Its 177.4 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s could benefit applications that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound. It also has more ROPS (48 vs. 32), which may help in specific rasterization scenarios. However, no benchmark data is provided to confirm an actual performance win in these areas.

Given the GTX 950's higher shading unit count, higher clocks, and lower power draw, the data suggests it is the better pick for general-purpose compute and modern gaming workloads. The GTX 480 might be considered only for niche bandwidth-heavy tasks, but the lack of benchmark evidence for such a win makes that a speculative choice. The GTX 950's 15.1% head-to-head lead, combined with its efficiency and modern feature set, makes it the clear winner in this comparison.