NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different architectural generations, aimed at laptop and portable devices via the MXM module form factor. The GTX 780M is a large Kepler-based chip from 2013, while the GTX 950A is a smaller Maxwell-based chip from 2015. Benchmark data shows the older GTX 780M holds a decisive performance lead, but the GTX 950A counters with superior power efficiency and newer API support. This analysis breaks down the architectural, benchmark, and practical differences between the two based strictly on the provided data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the available benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M wins the only head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) with a score of 12,769, which is 24.3% ahead of the GTX 950A's score of 10,273.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: No. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 780M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to other GPUs?

A: The GTX 780M has an average benchmark score of 11,261, placing it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 950A has an average score of 10,273, placing it at the 48th percentile.

Q: What are their closest competitors according to the data?

A: The GTX 780M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 with an average score of 11,228 (a 0.3% difference). The GTX 950A's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6500M with an average score of 10,362 (a -0.9% difference).

Q: What type of memory do they use?

A: The GTX 780M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density despite being smaller?

A: The GTX 950A has a higher transistor density of 12.6M / mm², compared to the GTX 780M's 12.0M / mm², even though the GTX 780M has more total transistors (3,540 million vs 1,870 million).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct NVIDIA architectures on the same 28 nm TSMC process node. The GTX 780M is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, featuring a die size of 294 mm² and housing 3,540 million transistors. In contrast, the GTX 950A uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, which is significantly smaller at 148 mm² and contains 1,870 million transistors. This makes the GTX 950A a much more compact design with a higher transistor density of 12.6M / mm² versus the GTX 780M's 12.0M / mm².

The compute resources differ dramatically. The GTX 780M packs 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 950A, by comparison, has only 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This accounts for the GTX 780M's much higher theoretical throughput: 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the GTX 950A. Pixel and texture rates follow suit, with the GTX 780M delivering 25.50 GPixel/s and 102.0 GTexel/s, while the GTX 950A manages 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The GTX 780M uses a 256-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory running at 1250 MHz, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950A uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of DDR3 memory at 1001 MHz, resulting in only 32.03 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 780M's memory subsystem is vastly superior in both capacity and throughput.

The GTX 950A does have a notable advantage in power consumption, with a TDP of 75 W compared to the GTX 780M's 122 W. Both use the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and require no external power connectors. For software support, the GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 780M only reaches Vulkan 1.2.175; both share DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support. The GTX 780M's release date is 2013-05-10, with the GTX 950A following on 2015-03-12.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780M wins decisively in raw compute performance. It holds a 24.3% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the only direct comparison available. This lead is consistent with its larger shader count, wider memory bus, and higher memory bandwidth. For any workload that is compute-bound or memory-bandwidth-bound, such as rendering, complex shaders, or high-resolution texture work, the GTX 780M is the clear choice. Its average benchmark score of 11,261 versus 10,273 for the GTX 950A reinforces this, as does its higher percentile ranking (50th vs 48th).

The GTX 950A wins in efficiency and platform compatibility. Its 75 W TDP is significantly lower than the GTX 780M's 122 W, making it a better fit for thinner or more power-constrained laptops. It also has a more modern Vulkan implementation (1.4 vs 1.2.175), which could provide better performance in Vulkan-based titles or applications that leverage newer features. The GTX 950A's smaller die size and fewer transistors also suggest lower manufacturing complexity, though both are end-of-life products.

In terms of competitive positioning, the GTX 780M sits slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228) and AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225), both with a 0.3% delta. The GTX 950A, however, trails the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362) by 0.9% and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400) by 1.2%, while leading the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070) by 2%. This shows the GTX 950A is competitive in its class but not a top performer, whereas the GTX 780M holds a slight edge over its nearest rivals.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Chip | GK104 | GM107 |

| Generation | GeForce 700M | GeForce 900A |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | 993 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 797 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 32.03 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 640 |

| TMUs | 128 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 17.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 102.0 GTexel/s | 44.96 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.448 TFLOPS | 1,438.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 122 W | 75 W |

| Vulkan API | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-05-10 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | GeForce 800A |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it heavily favors the GTX 780M. The GTX 780M scores 12,769, while the GTX 950A scores 10,273. This represents a 24.3% performance advantage for the GTX 780M. The result is not surprising given the architectural disparity: the GTX 780M has 2.4 times the shading units, 3.2 times the TMUs, and 5 times the memory bandwidth of the GTX 950A. The GTX 780M's FP32 throughput of 2.448 TFLOPS is also 70% higher than the GTX 950A's 1,438.7 GFLOPS.

The GTX 780M also shows strength in its average benchmark score of 11,261, which is 9.6% higher than the GTX 950A's 10,273. This aggregate figure suggests the GTX 780M's advantage extends beyond a single test, even though no other head-to-head results are provided. The GTX 780M's percentile ranking of 50th versus 48th for the GTX 950A further confirms its superior standing in the overall GPU landscape.

However, the GTX 950A is not without merit. Its higher base and boost clocks (993 MHz and 1124 MHz vs 771 MHz and 797 MHz) indicate better clock-for-clock efficiency from the Maxwell architecture, but they cannot overcome the massive deficit in core count and memory bandwidth. The GTX 950A's higher transistor density (12.6M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²) shows a more efficient use of silicon area, but this does not translate into a performance win.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M is the faster GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 24.3%, boasts a higher average benchmark score (11,261 vs 10,273), and ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile (50th vs 48th). For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, memory bandwidth, or the ability to handle large textures and high resolutions, the GTX 780M is the only choice between these two. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is five times that of the GTX 950A's 32.03 GB/s. This makes the GTX 780M far better suited for demanding gaming, content creation, or compute tasks.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is the pick for efficiency-focused builds. Its 75 W TDP is 47 W lower than the GTX 780M's 122 W, which can be critical in a laptop where thermals and battery life are paramount. It also offers a newer Vulkan API (1.4 vs 1.2.175), which may provide better forward compatibility with modern applications that leverage Vulkan features. The GTX 950A's higher clock speeds (993 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost) and smaller footprint make it a more refined, power-conscious design, but the performance gap is simply too large to ignore for most workloads.

In practical terms, if you are choosing between these two for a laptop or MXM upgrade, the GTX 780M is the performance pick, and the GTX 950A is the efficiency pick. The GTX 780M is closer to its nearest rivals, sitting just 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, while the GTX 950A sits 0.9% below the AMD Radeon RX 6500M. Neither card is competitive with modern high-end GPUs, but among these two, the GTX 780M delivers a substantially stronger experience across the board, provided your system can handle its higher power draw and cooling requirements. The GTX 950A only makes sense if power consumption is your absolute priority and you are willing to accept a 24.3% performance deficit in the most demanding applications.