NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

The data presents a fascinating generational clash: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A, a mobile-centric Maxwell part from 2015, against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480, a desktop Fermi flagship from 2010. The benchmark results reveal a clear performance hierarchy, but the underlying specifications tell a more complex story about architectural evolution and design philosophy. The GTX 480 emerges as the raw performance winner in the single available test, yet the GTX 960A counters with a staggering efficiency advantage that redefines what a lower-performing chip can achieve.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark in the dataset, Geekbench OpenCL, delivers a decisive outcome. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 scores 13300 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A trails with 11998 points. This represents a 9.8% delta in favor of the GTX 480, making it the undisputed winner of the head-to-head comparison. The GTX 480's victory is not marginal; it is a solid, measurable lead that places it in a higher performance tier.

However, the context of this score is crucial. The GTX 480's average benchmark score of 13300 places it at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960A's 11998 score lands at the 51st percentile. The gap between them is roughly two percentile points, indicating that while the GTX 480 is faster, both cards occupy a similar mid-range bracket in the broader GPU landscape. The GTX 480's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13321, -0.2%), AMD FirePro M6100 (13354, -0.4%), and AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13356, -0.4%). This clustering suggests the GTX 480 is competitively positioned among its contemporaries, just barely edging out the GTX 960A.

For the GTX 960A, the benchmark picture is tighter against its own rivals. It sits just 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (11960), a much more powerful card in most respects, and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11842). It also leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11680) by 2.7% and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11627) by 3.2%. This implies that in the specific OpenCL workload tested, the GTX 960A punches well above its weight class, outperforming cards that are generally considered far superior in gaming and compute scenarios. The data suggests that the GTX 480's win is real, but the GTX 960A's performance is surprisingly competitive relative to its more modern peers.

Architecture Differences

The performance delta between these two cards is rooted in fundamentally different architectural approaches. The GTX 960A is built on the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process node at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a compact 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. This is a highly efficient design that prioritizes power economy over brute force.

In contrast, the GTX 480 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, produced on a much older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 3,100 million transistors spread across a massive 529 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter. This is a more primitive, power-hungry design that achieves performance through sheer scale rather than efficiency. The die size difference is stark: the GTX 480's die is over three and a half times larger than the GTX 960A's, yet it only houses roughly 1.7 times the transistor count.

The memory subsystems also diverge significantly. The GTX 960A offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 480 counters with 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a much wider 384-bit bus, achieving 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth—more than double the GTX 960A's throughput. This bandwidth advantage is a key reason for the GTX 480's superior benchmark score, as OpenCL workloads often stress memory bandwidth heavily. Clock speeds also differ: the GTX 960A runs at a base of 1097 MHz with a boost of 1176 MHz, while the GTX 480's clocks are not specified in the data, though its memory runs at 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 960A's 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Feature support shows another divide. The GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 480 matches DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed. This makes the GTX 960A more future-proof for modern applications and games that leverage Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 480 wins outright in the compute benchmark, and the data points to specific strengths. Its 48 ROPs and 60 texture mapping units (TMUs) far exceed the GTX 960A's 16 ROPs and 40 TMUs. This translates to a pixel rate of 21.03 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 42.06 GTexel/s for the GTX 480, versus the GTX 960A's 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s. Interestingly, the GTX 960A has a higher texture fill rate due to its higher clock speeds, but the GTX 480's pixel throughput and massive memory bandwidth give it an edge in fill-rate-bound and bandwidth-heavy scenarios. The GTX 480's 384-bit bus is its ace in the hole for large data sets.

The GTX 960A wins decisively on efficiency and modern feature support. Its TDP is a mere 75 W, compared to the GTX 480's 250 W—a 175 W difference that makes the GTX 960A far more suitable for compact or mobile systems. It requires no external power connectors and uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, while the GTX 480 needs a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The GTX 960A also has a higher FP32 throughput of 1.505 TFLOPS versus the GTX 480's 1,345.0 GFLOPS, indicating that in pure compute per clock, the newer chip is more capable. The GTX 960A's 640 shading units outnumber the GTX 480's 480, further underscoring its architectural efficiency.

The Verdict

The data offers a clear verdict for different use cases. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 is the pick for raw compute performance, as its 13300 OpenCL score demonstrates. It is also the better choice for legacy DirectX 11 workloads that benefit from high memory bandwidth and high pixel throughput. Its 53rd percentile ranking, while not stellar, is respectable, and its position among rivals like the AMD Radeon Pro 555X shows it remains competitive in its niche.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is the pick for modern, power-constrained systems. Its 75 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and MXM form factor make it ideal for laptops or small-form-factor builds where the GTX 480's 250 W draw would be impractical. Its Vulkan 1.4 support ensures compatibility with contemporary APIs, and its higher shading unit count suggests better compute efficiency for certain tasks. While it loses the head-to-head by 9.8%, it wins on every metric of power consumption and modern feature integration.

Strictly from the data, a user prioritizing maximum benchmark score should choose the GTX 480. A user prioritizing efficiency, thermals, and API currency should choose the GTX 960A. The GTX 480 offers raw power; the GTX 960A offers intelligent design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 scores 13300 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 9.8% higher than the GTX 960A's 11998.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two cards?

A: The GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W, while the GTX 480 has a TDP of 250 W, making the GTX 960A significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Does the GTX 960A support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GTX 960A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 480 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The GTX 480 has a memory bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s via a 384-bit bus, while the GTX 960A offers 80.19 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor count for each chip?

A: The GTX 960A's GM107 chip has 1,870 million transistors, while the GTX 480's GF100 chip has 3,100 million transistors.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 960A has 640 shading units, compared to the GTX 480's 480 shading units.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM107 | GF100 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Generation | GeForce 900A | GeForce 400 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1097 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1536 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 177.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 480 |

| TMUs | 40 | 60 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.82 GPixel/s | 21.03 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 47.04 GTexel/s | 42.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.505 TFLOPS | 1,345.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | None |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2010-03-25 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800A | GeForce 200 |

| Successor | None | GeForce 500 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 499 USD |