NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 in both head-to-head tests. In Geekbench Metal, the GTX 970 scores 13,595 against the GTX 880M's 10,458, a 23.1% advantage. That is a substantial margin, but it is the OpenCL result that truly separates these two cards. The GTX 970 posts 29,982 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 880M manages only 5,622. The delta is 81.2%, meaning the 970 delivers more than five times the compute throughput in this particular workload. The older Kepler part is not merely slower; it is in a different performance class entirely.

Looking at the broader database averages, the picture becomes more nuanced. The GTX 880M carries an average benchmark score of 8,040, while the GTX 970 averages 7,157. That is a reversal of the head-to-head results, and the reason lies in the benchmark suites used. The 880M has its average built from Metal and OpenCL scores only, whereas the 970's average includes a wider range of tests, including several Passmark DX9, DX10, DX11, and DX12 runs, plus 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The 970's average is dragged down by its low Passmark DX scores (46 in DX10, 71 in DX11, 41 in DX12) and its modest 3DMark result of 369. The 880M has no such low-scoring entries in its record. The database percentiles reflect this: the 880M sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, the 970 at the 39th. So while the 970 wins every direct comparison available, the aggregate data suggests the 880M holds its own in the specific tests where both were measured.

The rival sets also tell an interesting story. The 880M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (average 8,039, delta 0%), the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8,053, delta -0.2%), the GTX 650 Ti Boost (8,067, delta -0.3%), and the GRID K2 (8,080, delta -0.5%). The 880M essentially sits in a dead heat with the Quadro P5000, and it trails the three other cards by less than a percentage point. The 970's rival list is lower in absolute terms: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170, delta -0.2%), the GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171, delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203, delta -0.6%), and the GeForce GTX 750 (7,222, delta -0.9%). The 970 is within 0.9% of all four, which suggests the database places it in a crowded mid-range band despite its strong OpenCL showing.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation: choose the GTX 970 for any workload that leans on compute or modern API support. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 29,982 dwarfs the 880M's 5,622, and its Metal result is 23.1% higher. If your software uses OpenCL heavily, the 970 is the only sensible pick. The 880M's aggregate average is higher, but that is an artifact of the limited test set recorded for it. In the two tests where both cards were measured, the 970 wins both outright.

The GTX 880M is not without merit. Its 8 GB memory capacity is double the 970's 4 GB, and its 122 W TDP is lower than the 970's 148 W. For a portable or MXM-based system where power draw is critical and memory capacity matters more than raw compute, the 880M remains functional. But the benchmark record does not support choosing it for speed. The 970 delivers superior frame rates in compute-heavy tasks, supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the 880M's DirectX 12 (11_0), and has a higher Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.175). The 970 also runs at higher clocks: 1050 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost against 954 MHz and 993 MHz. If the choice is between these two for a desktop build, the 970 is the stronger card. The 880M only makes sense in a specific mobile or low-power scenario where its MXM form factor and 8 GB frame buffer are decisive.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The GTX 880M is built on Kepler, using the GK104 chip, while the GTX 970 uses Maxwell 2.0 with the GM204 die. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The GM204 contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, for 13.1 million per square millimeter. That is a 47% increase in raw transistor count and a 9% higher density. The larger, denser chip explains much of the 970's performance advantage.

The memory subsystems differ in capacity and bandwidth. The 880M ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s. The 970 has 4 GB of GDDR5, also on a 256-bit bus, but with a higher 224.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 970's memory clock is 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus the 880M's 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), which is why the 970 achieves 40% more bandwidth despite the same bus width. The 970's smaller capacity may be a limitation for some modern workloads, but its bandwidth advantage is substantial.

Compute resources also favor the 970. It has 1,664 shading units against the 880M's 1,536, and 56 ROPs against 32. The 970 has fewer TMUs (104 vs 128), but its pixel rate of 65.97 GPixel/s is more than double the 880M's 31.78 GPixel/s. Texture rate is nearly identical: 122.5 GTexel/s for the 970, 127.1 GTexel/s for the 880M. FP32 performance is 3.920 TFLOPS on the 970 versus 3.050 TFLOPS on the 880M. Neither card has dedicated RT or tensor cores. The 970 also has a more modern API set: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175. OpenGL is 4.6 on both.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The GTX 970 scores 13,595 versus the GTX 880M's 10,458, a 23.1% advantage for the 970.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The GTX 970 scores 29,982 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 880M scores 5,622. That is an 81.2% difference, meaning the 970 delivers roughly five times the compute result.

Q: Does the GTX 880M have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5, twice the 970's 4 GB. However, the 970 has higher bandwidth at 224.4 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The GTX 880M has a TDP of 122 W, while the GTX 970 has a TDP of 148 W. The 880M also uses no external power connectors, while the 970 requires two 6-pin connectors and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: What are the API differences?

A: The GTX 880M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Why does the GTX 880M have a higher average benchmark score if it loses head-to-head?

A: The 880M's average of 8,040 is based only on its two recorded tests (Metal and OpenCL). The 970's average of 7,157 includes many additional low-scoring tests, such as Passmark DX10 (46), DX11 (71), and 3DMark Steel Nomad (369), which pull its aggregate down.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970 wins every direct head-to-head benchmark in the database. Its Metal score is 23.1% higher, and its OpenCL score is 81.2% higher. In compute-heavy applications like OpenCL-based physics, rendering, or GPU-accelerated analytics, the 970 is the clear choice. Its higher FP32 throughput (3.920 TFLOPS vs 3.050 TFLOPS) and doubled pixel rate (65.97 GPixel/s vs 31.78 GPixel/s) reinforce this. The 970 also wins on API modernity, with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 support, which matters for newer games and applications.

The GTX 880M has specific advantages outside raw benchmark scores. Its 8 GB memory capacity is double the 970's, which can be decisive for workloads that require large frame buffers, such as high-resolution texture packs or certain professional visualization tasks. Its lower TDP of 122 W against 148 W makes it easier to cool and more suitable for compact systems. As an MXM module with no power connectors, it fits into laptop and mobile workstation chassis. The 880M's texture rate is also slightly higher at 127.1 GTexel/s versus 122.5 GTexel/s, and it has more TMUs (128 vs 104). In the aggregate benchmark database, the 880M sits at the 42nd percentile versus the 970's 39th, indicating that its limited test set still places it competitively among all GPUs.

For a desktop gaming or general-purpose build, the 970 wins on performance. For a mobile or low-power system where memory capacity and thermal headroom matter more than peak compute, the 880M remains viable.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several key specifications. The GTX 880M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GTX 970 uses the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. Transistor density is 12.0M per mm² for the 880M and 13.1M per mm² for the 970. The 880M has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The 970 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 56 ROPs. Base clocks are 954 MHz for the 880M and 1050 MHz for the 970. Boost clocks are 993 MHz and 1178 MHz, respectively. Memory clocks are 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the 880M and 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the 970.

Memory capacity is 8 GB on the 880M versus 4 GB on the 970, both GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth favors the 970 at 224.4 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. Pixel rate is 31.78 GPixel/s on the 880M and 65.97 GPixel/s on the 970. Texture rate is 127.1 GTexel/s on the 880M and 122.5 GTexel/s on the 970. FP32 performance is 3.050 TFLOPS on the 880M and 3.920 TFLOPS on the 970. TDP is 122 W for the 880M and 148 W for the 970. The 880M is an MXM Module with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors. The 970 is a dual-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x16, two 6-pin connectors, and a 300 W suggested PSU. Display outputs: the 880M is portable-device dependent, while the 970 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The 970's dimensions are 267 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width. The 970 launched with a 329 USD MSRP. Release dates are March 2014 for the 880M and September 2014 for the 970. Both are end-of-life products.