NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 960A and GeForce MX350 are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on very different philosophies. The GTX 960A is a Maxwell-era part from 2015, designed as an MXM module for larger laptops, while the MX350 is a Pascal-era chip from 2020, built for slim, power-efficient ultraportables. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the older card wins decisively in raw compute, but the newer card counters with a better API feature set and a much lower power draw.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are not close. The GTX 960A scores 11998, while the MX350 scores 8689. This gives the GTX 960A a 38.1% performance advantage in this compute-heavy workload. That is a substantial gap, roughly equivalent to the difference between a mid-range and an entry-level desktop GPU in the same generation.

To put that score in context, the GTX 960A sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the MX350 sits at the 49th percentile. Despite being older, the GTX 960A’s absolute performance places it above half of all GPUs ever benchmarked. The MX350, meanwhile, is just below that midpoint. The GTX 960A’s score of 11998 puts it just 0.3% ahead of a GeForce GTX 1080 (11960) and 1.3% ahead of an AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11842). It also edges out a GeForce GTX 1660 (11680) by 2.7% and an AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11627) by 3.2%. These are older or lower-tier desktop parts, but it shows the GTX 960A is punching well above its mobile, 75 W class.

The MX350’s OpenCL score of 8689 places it in a different tier entirely. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10804), which it trails by 0.7%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10761), which it trails by 1.1%. It is also behind the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11047) by -1.5% and the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11075) by -1.7%. Notably, all of its nearest rivals score above 10000, meaning the MX350 is the weakest of its immediate peer group in this specific test.

However, the MX350 has one benchmark the GTX 960A lacks entirely: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 13077. The GTX 960A has no Vulkan benchmark result in the data, so no direct comparison is possible. This is significant because the MX350’s Vulkan score is substantially higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting the architecture handles modern, low-level graphics APIs much better than the older Maxwell design. The GTX 960A’s OpenCL win is real, but it only tells part of the story.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960A wins in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 11998 versus 8689 for the MX350 is a 38.1% margin. This translates directly to performance in GPU-accelerated applications like video encoding, rendering, physics simulations, and compute-heavy filters. If the workload is OpenCL-based and pure number-crunching, the GTX 960A is the clear choice. Its higher texture rate (47.04 GTexel/s vs 46.98 GTexel/s) is nearly identical, but its higher pixel rate (18.82 GPixel/s vs 23.49 GPixel/s) actually favors the MX350 in fill-rate-limited tasks. However, the FP32 compute of 1.505 TFLOPS for the GTX 960A versus 1.879 TFLOPS for the MX350 shows the newer chip has higher theoretical floating-point performance, even though it loses in the real-world OpenCL test.

The MX350 wins on efficiency and API support. Its TDP of 20 W is dramatically lower than the GTX 960A’s 75 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops without active cooling for the GPU. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) , whereas the GTX 960A only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) . This means the MX350 can handle more modern rendering features and effects in games that require DX12_1. The MX350’s Vulkan score of 13077 also suggests it is better optimized for that API, even without a direct comparison. For a user prioritizing battery life, low heat, and modern game compatibility, the MX350 is the better fit.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute benchmarks?

A: The GTX 960A is significantly faster, scoring 11998 versus 8689 for the MX350, a 38.1% advantage.

Q: Does the MX350 have any benchmark advantage over the GTX 960A?

A: The MX350 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 13077, while the GTX 960A has no Vulkan benchmark result listed, so no direct comparison is possible. The MX350 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) , a higher feature level than the GTX 960A’s DirectX 12 (11_0) .

Q: How does the GTX 960A compare to other GPUs in its performance class?

A: Its OpenCL score of 11998 places it 0.3% ahead of a GeForce GTX 1080 (11960) and 1.3% ahead of an AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11842). It is also 2.7% ahead of a GeForce GTX 1660 (11680) and 3.2% ahead of an AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11627).

Q: What is the performance ranking of the MX350 among its nearest rivals?

A: The MX350’s OpenCL score of 8689 is below all four of its nearest listed rivals. It trails the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10804) by 0.7%, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10761) by 1.1%, the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11047) by -1.5%, and the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11075) by -1.7%.

Q: Which GPU has better theoretical compute specifications?

A: The MX350 has higher FP32 performance at 1.879 TFLOPS compared to 1.505 TFLOPS for the GTX 960A, despite losing in the real-world OpenCL benchmark. The MX350 also has a higher pixel rate of 23.49 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s for the GTX 960A.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the GTX 960A and the MX350 are listed with a production status of "End-of-life."

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every core specification, reflecting their different design goals. The GTX 960A is built on a 28 nm process by TSMC, with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The MX350 uses a 14 nm process by Samsung, packing 3,300 million transistors into a smaller 132 mm² die. This leads to a much higher transistor density for the MX350: 25.0M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm² for the GTX 960A.

Clock speeds also favor the MX350, with a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz, compared to the GTX 960A’s 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost. The memory subsystems are notably different: both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 960A uses a 128 bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX350 is limited to a 64 bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The MX350’s memory clock is higher at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GTX 960A.

Core counts differ as well. Both have 640 shading units, but the GTX 960A has 40 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus 32 for the MX350. Both have 16 raster output units (ROPs). The GTX 960A has a higher texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s versus 46.98 GTexel/s for the MX350, but the MX350 has a higher pixel rate of 23.49 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s. Power consumption is a major divider: the GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W, while the MX350 draws only 20 W. The GTX 960A is an MXM-B (3.0) module, while the MX350 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface. Neither requires a power connector.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is clear: the GTX 960A is based on the GM107 chip using NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, while the MX350 uses the GP107S chip with the Pascal architecture. This is a generational leap from 2015 to 2020, and it shows in the feature set. The Maxwell design in the GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) , which is a baseline feature level, whereas Pascal in the MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) , adding support for more advanced rendering features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer ordered views.

Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so the API ceiling is the same there. The MX350 also has a listed FP16 performance of 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64) , which is a low ratio indicating it is not optimized for half-precision compute, while the GTX 960A has no FP16 data listed. The manufacturing processes are fundamentally different, with the GTX 960A on a mature 28 nm node and the MX350 on a denser 14 nm node, which is the primary reason for the MX350’s much lower power draw. The transistor counts, 1,870 million for the GTX 960A versus 3,300 million for the MX350, also reflect the more modern design.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward choice. If the priority is raw OpenCL compute performance, the GTX 960A is the superior part. Its 11998 score is 38.1% higher than the MX350’s 8689, and it even rivals desktop GPUs like the GTX 1080 and RX 6500 XT in that specific test. This makes it the better option for users running GPU-accelerated workloads that leverage OpenCL, where that extra compute headroom will directly translate to faster completion times.

If the priority is efficiency, modern API support, and portability, the MX350 is the logical pick. Its 20 W TDP makes it suitable for slim laptops where a 75 W module would be impractical. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) , ensuring better compatibility with modern games that require that feature level, something the GTX 960A cannot offer with its DirectX 12 (11_0) support. The MX350’s Vulkan score of 13077 also indicates it is well optimized for that API, even if no direct comparison exists.

Users should also consider that the GTX 960A has an end-of-life status and uses an MXM form factor, meaning it is generally only found in older, larger laptops. The MX350, despite being end-of-life, is a more flexible PCIe 3.0 x4 part. In short, the GTX 960A wins on sheer performance and compute, while the MX350 wins on efficiency, modern features, and practical integration into thin devices. There is no overall winner; the correct choice depends entirely on whether the workload is compute-bound or if system power and API compatibility are the limiting factors.