NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A, running the Geekbench OpenCL test. This is the only head-to-head result recorded, so the analysis rests entirely on that measurement.

The GTX TITAN scores 24873 points, while the GTX 960A scores 11998 points. That is a delta of 107.3%, meaning the TITAN more than doubles the 960A’s OpenCL performance. In absolute terms, the TITAN leads by 12875 points, a margin that outweighs the 960A’s entire score by roughly 877 points.

Looking at the wider database context, the TITAN’s average benchmark score is 14373, placing it at the 56th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 averages 14385 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M averages 14404 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon Vega 11 averages 14352 (0.1% behind), and the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics averages 14315 (0.4% behind). The TITAN sits within a 0.4% band of these competitors, indicating that its average performance across multiple workloads is roughly on par with mid-range integrated and mobile parts, even though its peak OpenCL result is dramatically higher.

The GTX 960A, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 11998, placing it at the 51st percentile. Its nearest rivals are far more powerful on paper: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 averages 11960 (0.3% behind the 960A), the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT averages 11842 (1.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 averages 11680 (2.7% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT averages 11627 (3.2% behind). This is a striking result: the 960A’s OpenCL score is actually higher than those four modern desktop GPUs, despite the latter having far larger memory buses and higher transistor counts. The recorded data shows that the 960A’s OpenCL execution is efficient relative to its class, even though its raw specifications are modest.

The head-to-head delta of 107.3% is the single largest performance gap in this comparison. No other test exists to break the tie, so the TITAN wins the only recorded matchup. However, the percentile data reveals a nuance: the TITAN’s average score (14373) is only 19.8% above the 960A’s average (11998), far smaller than the 107.3% OpenCL delta. This suggests that the TITAN’s OpenCL performance is an outlier relative to its own average, while the 960A’s OpenCL score is its sole recorded benchmark, making it representative of that part’s measured capability.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 24873 versus 11998 for the GTX 960A, a delta of 107.3%.

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

A: The TITAN averages 14373. It sits within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14385, 0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14404, 0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14352, 0.1% behind), and the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315, 0.4% behind).

Q: Is the GTX 960A’s OpenCL score competitive with modern desktop GPUs?

A: Yes. The 960A’s OpenCL score of 11998 is higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (11960, 0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11842, 1.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11680, 2.7% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11627, 3.2% behind).

Q: What is the TITAN’s percentile rank among all GPUs?

A: The TITAN is at the 56th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 14373.

Q: What is the GTX 960A’s percentile rank among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 960A is at the 51st percentile, with an average benchmark score of 11998.

Q: Does the GTX 960A have any recorded benchmark other than OpenCL?

A: No. The database lists only the Geekbench OpenCL score (11998) for the GTX 960A. The TITAN has three recorded benchmarks: Geekbench Metal (8218), Geekbench OpenCL (24873), and Geekbench Vulkan (10027).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different NVIDIA architectures. The GTX TITAN is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK110 chip, and is part of the GeForce 700 generation. The GTX 960A is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 900A generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both have the same transistor density of 12.6M per square millimeter, but the physical scale differs enormously.

The GK110 die measures 561 mm² and contains 7,080 million transistors. The GM107 die measures 148 mm² and contains 1,870 million transistors. That means the TITAN’s die is roughly 3.8 times larger by area and carries about 3.8 times more transistors. The transistor density being identical (12.6M / mm²) indicates that both chips were produced on the same lithographic node, but the TITAN simply packs far more hardware into that node.

The shading unit counts reflect this disparity. The TITAN has 2688 shading units, 224 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 render output units (ROPs). The 960A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These are approximately 4.2 times, 5.6 times, and 3 times more, respectively, for the TITAN. The TITAN’s pixel rate is 49.06 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s for the 960A, a 2.6 times advantage. Its texture rate is 196.2 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s, a 4.2 times advantage.

The floating-point throughput (FP32) tells a similar story: the TITAN delivers 4.709 TFLOPS, while the 960A delivers 1.505 TFLOPS. That is a 3.1 times gap. Both GPUs lack dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, as neither architecture includes those features.

The memory subsystems differ as well. The TITAN uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s. The 960A uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s. The memory clock rates are 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the TITAN and 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the 960A.

The API support shows a notable difference in Vulkan versions. The TITAN supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer Maxwell chip exposes a newer Vulkan revision, while the Kepler chip is limited to 1.2.175.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs according to the recorded data:

• Chip: GK110 (TITAN) versus GM107 (960A)
• Architecture: Kepler (TITAN) versus Maxwell (960A)
• Generation: GeForce 700 (TITAN) versus GeForce 900A (960A)
• Transistors: 7,080 million (TITAN) versus 1,870 million (960A)
• Die size: 561 mm² (TITAN) versus 148 mm² (960A)
• Base clock: 836 MHz (TITAN) versus 1097 MHz (960A)
• Boost clock: 876 MHz (TITAN) versus 1176 MHz (960A)
• Memory clock: 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective (TITAN) versus 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective (960A)
• Memory size: 6 GB (TITAN) versus 2 GB (960A)
• Memory bus width: 384 bit (TITAN) versus 128 bit (960A)
• Memory bandwidth: 288.4 GB/s (TITAN) versus 80.19 GB/s (960A)
• Shading units: 2688 (TITAN) versus 640 (960A)
• TMUs: 224 (TITAN) versus 40 (960A)
• ROPs: 48 (TITAN) versus 16 (960A)
• Pixel rate: 49.06 GPixel/s (TITAN) versus 18.82 GPixel/s (960A)
• Texture rate: 196.2 GTexel/s (TITAN) versus 47.04 GTexel/s (960A)
• FP32: 4.709 TFLOPS (TITAN) versus 1.505 TFLOPS (960A)
• TDP: 250 W (TITAN) versus 75 W (960A)
• Slot width: Dual-slot (TITAN) versus MXM Module (960A)
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin (TITAN) versus None (960A)
• Suggested PSU: 600 W (TITAN) versus null (960A)
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 (TITAN) versus MXM-B (3.0) (960A)
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 (TITAN) versus Portable Device Dependent (960A)
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm x 38 mm (TITAN) versus null length, height, width (960A)
• Vulkan version: 1.2.175 (TITAN) versus 1.4 (960A)
• Release date: 2013-02-18 (TITAN) versus 2015-03-12 (960A)
• Predecessor: GeForce 600 (TITAN) versus GeForce 800A (960A)
• Successor: GeForce 900 (TITAN) versus null (960A)
• Launch MSRP: 999 USD (TITAN) versus null (960A)

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN wins the only head-to-head benchmark decisively, with a 107.3% higher OpenCL score. It also wins on every raw compute specification: higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, higher FP32 throughput, larger memory capacity, wider memory bus, and higher memory bandwidth. For any workload that scales with shading units, texture fill, or memory bandwidth, the TITAN is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The 960A wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its TDP is 75 W versus 250 W for the TITAN, meaning it draws far less power. It requires no power connectors, while the TITAN needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The 960A is an MXM module, designed for portable devices, whereas the TITAN is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm in length. The 960A also runs at higher clocks: a base of 1097 MHz versus 836 MHz, and a boost of 1176 MHz versus 876 MHz. That clock advantage does not offset the TITAN’s massive hardware advantage, but it does show that the Maxwell chip achieves higher frequencies per watt.

The 960A also has a newer Vulkan API version (1.4 versus 1.2.175), which may matter for applications using newer Vulkan features. However, the TITAN’s OpenCL score is more than double, so any API advantage for the 960A is unlikely to bridge the compute gap in most scenarios.

In terms of database percentiles, the TITAN ranks higher (56th percentile versus 51st). The TITAN’s average score is 14373, while the 960A’s average is 11998, a 19.8% difference. That average gap is much smaller than the OpenCL delta, which suggests that the TITAN’s other workloads (Metal, Vulkan) bring its average down relative to its OpenCL peak. The 960A has only one recorded benchmark, so its average equals that single score.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN is the superior performer in raw compute and memory throughput. Its OpenCL score of 24873 crushes the 960A’s 11998, and its specifications are several times larger across the board. Anyone needing maximum FP32 throughput, texture fill, or memory bandwidth should choose the TITAN, provided the system can accommodate a 250 W dual-slot card with a 600 W suggested PSU and a 6-pin plus 8-pin power connection.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is the choice for constrained environments. It is a 75 W MXM module with no external power connectors, designed for portable devices where space and cooling are limited. Its higher base and boost clocks (1097 MHz and 1176 MHz) and newer Vulkan support (1.4) give it some modern API advantages, but its compute capabilities are far below the TITAN.

The verdict from the database is straightforward: the TITAN wins the performance comparison by a wide margin, while the 960A wins the efficiency and form-factor comparison. The TITAN’s average score of 14373 places it in the 56th percentile, comparable to integrated Vega parts, but its OpenCL peak is exceptional. The 960A’s average of 11998 places it in the 51st percentile, and its OpenCL score outperforms several modern desktop GPUs in the database, which is notable for a mobile module. Ultimately, the choice depends on whether the workload demands absolute performance (TITAN) or minimal power and size (960A). The recorded data does not support any other conclusion.