NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK dominates the single shared test in this comparison, and it does so by a massive margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the TITAN BLACK scores 27,218 points, while the GTX 950A manages just 10,273. That represents a delta of -62.3% for the GTX 950A, meaning the TITAN BLACK delivers roughly 2.65 times the raw compute performance in this workload. The margin is so lopsided that the head-to-head table records a single win for the TITAN BLACK and zero for the GTX 950A.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective rivals reinforces the gulf between the two. The GTX 950A's 10,273 OpenCL score places it within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362) and 2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070). It sits 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400) and 2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481). For a mobile-oriented MXM card, this is a competitive mid-pack showing—the GTX 950A is essentially trading blows with entry-level discrete GPUs from both camps.

The TITAN BLACK, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 9,474 across all its tests, which puts it in a different performance conversation entirely. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (9,458, a 0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9,313, 1.7% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637, 1.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, 1.8% ahead). Notably, the TITAN BLACK's average score is dragged down by its weak DirectX 9 Passmark result of 133 and its modest DirectX 11 score of 73; its OpenCL and Vulkan results are far stronger.

The TITAN BLACK's individual benchmark portfolio tells a story of asymmetric strength. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 29,561 is its highest single result, followed by OpenCL at 27,218 and Metal at 24,172. The Passmark G3D score of 9,184 and GPU compute score of 3,726 round out a profile that excels in modern API compute workloads. In contrast, the GTX 950A has only a single benchmark result—the OpenCL score of 10,273—which suggests a narrower testing history but also a simpler performance picture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK wins the only shared test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 27,218 versus the GTX 950A's 10,273, a delta of -62.3% for the GTX 950A.

Q: How does the GTX 950A compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 950A's OpenCL score of 10,273 is within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362), 2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481), 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400), and 2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070).

Q: What is the TITAN BLACK's strongest benchmark result?

A: Its highest score is in Geekbench Vulkan at 29,561, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 27,218 and Geekbench Metal at 24,172. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 133 is its weakest result.

Q: Does the TITAN BLACK outperform the GTX 950A in all metrics?

A: Not necessarily in every raw specification, but in the only directly comparable benchmark (OpenCL), it wins decisively. The TITAN BLACK also has a higher percentile rank at 46 versus 48 for the GTX 950A, indicating the GTX 950A actually sits in a slightly higher percentile among all GPUs despite the lower absolute score.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The GTX 950A has an average benchmark score of 10,273 (based on its single OpenCL result), while the TITAN BLACK averages 9,474 across ten different benchmark tests including Passmark and Geekbench variants.

Q: How does the TITAN BLACK's average score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (9,458), 1.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9,313), 1.7% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637), and 1.8% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The GTX 950A is built on the GM107 chip using the Maxwell architecture, while the TITAN BLACK employs the GK110B chip based on the older Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both share the same transistor density of 12.6M per mm², but the physical scale of the chips differs enormously.

The GM107 in the GTX 950A packs 1,870 million transistors onto a die of 148 mm². The GK110B in the TITAN BLACK is a much larger chip, containing 7,080 million transistors across a 561 mm² die—roughly 3.8 times the transistor count and 3.8 times the die area. This scale difference explains the substantial gap in compute resources: the TITAN BLACK carries 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, while the GTX 950A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 32.03 GB/s. The TITAN BLACK uses 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s—over ten times the bandwidth. This has direct implications for texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution rendering, where memory bandwidth becomes a limiting factor.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The GTX 950A actually runs higher clocks: a base of 993 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz, versus the TITAN BLACK's 889 MHz base and 980 MHz boost. Memory clocks also favor the GTX 950A in raw MHz (1001 MHz versus 1750 MHz), but the effective data rates flip the comparison: the GTX 950A operates at 2 Gbps effective, while the TITAN BLACK reaches 7 Gbps effective due to its wider bus and GDDR5 signaling.

The API support differs on Vulkan: the GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the TITAN BLACK is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 950A is at feature level 11_0, whereas the TITAN BLACK reaches 11_1. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6 for both.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every specification category. The GTX 950A draws a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with no external power connectors, reflecting its mobile and compact design. The TITAN BLACK consumes 250 W, occupies a dual-slot width, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and recommends a 600 W power supply.

Bus interfaces differ: the GTX 950A uses MXM-B (3.0), while the TITAN BLACK uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for the GTX 950A, whereas the TITAN BLACK provides 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. Physical dimensions are only available for the TITAN BLACK: 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, and 38 mm (1.5 inches) in width.

Memory specifications are a major differentiator. The GTX 950A offers 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.03 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN BLACK offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN BLACK also leads in fill rates: 58.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 235.2 GTexel/s texture rate versus 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s for the GTX 950A. FP32 compute is similarly lopsided: the TITAN BLACK delivers 5.645 TFLOPS, while the GTX 950A manages 1,438.7 GFLOPS.

Release dates and generations differ as well: the GTX 950A launched on March 12, 2015, as part of the GeForce 900A generation, while the TITAN BLACK launched earlier on February 17, 2014, in the GeForce 700 generation. The TITAN BLACK's predecessor is the GeForce 600 series and its successor is the GeForce 900 series; the GTX 950A's predecessor is the GeForce 800A. Only the TITAN BLACK carries a launch MSRP of 999 USD.

The Verdict

The data leaves no room for ambiguity in raw performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK is the overwhelmingly faster GPU in compute workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 27,218 versus the GTX 950A's 10,273 represents a 62.3% lead, and its memory bandwidth advantage—336.0 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s—suggests it will scale far better in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The TITAN BLACK's 2,880 shading units and 5.645 TFLOPS of FP32 compute dwarf the GTX 950A's 640 shading units and 1,438.7 GFLOPS.

However, the GTX 950A is not without its own merits. It achieves a slightly higher percentile ranking at 48 versus 46, indicating that relative to all GPUs in the database, it sits marginally better than the TITAN BLACK. It also runs at higher clock speeds (993 MHz base versus 889 MHz) and draws only 75 W versus 250 W, making it a far more power-efficient option for compact MXM-based systems. Its newer Maxwell architecture also brings Vulkan 1.4 support, compared to the TITAN BLACK's Vulkan 1.2.175.

The choice between these two cards depends entirely on the use case. For desktop workstations with the power budget and physical space to accommodate a 250 W dual-slot card, the TITAN BLACK is the clear winner. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, 384-bit bus, and massive compute resources make it suitable for demanding rendering, compute, and multi-display workloads. The fact that its average benchmark score of 9,474 trails its OpenCL peak suggests variability across different APIs, but its Vulkan score of 29,561 shows it remains capable in modern compute environments.

For portable systems or low-power builds using MXM modules, the GTX 950A is the only viable option of the two. Its 75 W TDP requires no external power connectors, and its compact form factor is designed for laptops and small-form-factor systems. Performance-wise, it competes directly with entry-level discrete GPUs like the AMD Radeon RX 6500M and Radeon R9 M375, making it a reasonable choice for light gaming and general compute tasks, but it cannot approach the TITAN BLACK's throughput.

Ultimately, the TITAN BLACK is a high-end desktop part from 2014 aimed at enthusiasts and professionals, while the GTX 950A is a mid-range mobile part from 2015 targeting efficiency and portability. The benchmark data confirms that the TITAN BLACK delivers roughly 2.65 times the OpenCL performance, but the GTX 950A counters with lower power draw, higher clocks, and a newer API feature set. Buyers should weigh their hardware constraints first; if the system can support the TITAN BLACK, the performance gap is decisive. If power and form factor are paramount, the GTX 950A's competitive standing among its mobile peers makes it a serviceable choice.