NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs in this comparison occupy entirely different performance strata, yet the available benchmark data presents an unusual picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,998, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q achieves 11,088 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. These tests are not directly comparable—one measures compute workloads, the other rasterization—so the raw scores cannot be set against each other as a like-for-like contest. Instead, the meaningful head-to-head emerges by positioning each card against its own nearest rivals.

The GTX 960A sits 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (11,960), a margin so thin it falls within normal run-to-run variance. It widens the gap to 1.3% over the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842) and 2.7% over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680). The largest advantage in this cluster is 3.2% against the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627). These are modest margins, indicating that the GTX 960A, despite its 2015 vintage, still trades blows with much newer hardware in this specific OpenCL test. However, its 51st percentile ranking among all GPUs suggests it sits almost exactly at the median—neither a standout nor a laggard.

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q presents a more polarized picture. It ties exactly with the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (11,088, 0% delta), which is expected given their shared architecture and specification lineage. It edges ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 550 by 0.1% (11,075) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 0.4% (11,047). The only negative delta in its rival set is against the AMD FirePro W4300, which scores 1.2% higher (11,225). The RTX PRO 6000's 50th percentile ranking places it at the exact midpoint of the database, yet its nearest rivals are predominantly entry-level or older cards—a curious positioning for a flagship workstation part. The data suggests that in the Steel Nomad DX12 workload, this card's massive compute resources do not translate into a dominant lead over much less expensive hardware.

Interpreting these results requires caution. The GTX 960A's OpenCL score benefits from a test that scales well with the Maxwell architecture's compute throughput. The RTX PRO 6000's Steel Nomad result reflects a DX12 gaming-oriented workload that may not fully exercise its 24064 shading units or 752 tensor cores. Neither benchmark captures the full capability envelope of either card, but they do offer a snapshot of where each sits relative to its peers. The GTX 960A is a middle-of-the-pack performer that punches slightly above its age; the RTX PRO 6000 is a top-tier specification that, in this particular test, lands near the median of the database.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the choice between these two cards is not a question of performance parity—it is a question of workload relevance. The GTX 960A, with its 2 GB GDDR5 memory and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, is a legacy mobile-oriented part. Its 1.505 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 18.82 GPixel/s pixel rate are figures from a bygone era. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, by contrast, delivers 109.7 TFLOPS FP32, 437.8 GPixel/s, and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth across a 512-bit bus. In raw specification terms, the RTX PRO 6000 is several orders of magnitude more capable.

Yet the benchmark results do not reflect that gulf. The GTX 960A's 51st percentile and the RTX PRO 6000's 50th percentile indicate that, within their respective test suites, both land near the database midpoint. This is a statistical artifact of comparing different workloads, not a statement of equivalence. A user running OpenCL compute tasks on legacy software would find the GTX 960A adequate for its era. A professional running modern DX12 workloads, ray tracing, or AI inference would find the RTX PRO 6000's feature set—188 RT cores, 752 tensor cores, 96 GB of GDDR7—essential.

The verdict hinges on context. For a legacy system requiring an MXM module with no external power connectors and a 75 W TDP, the GTX 960A is the only viable option in this pairing. For any modern workstation task—3D rendering, simulation, machine learning—the RTX PRO 6000 is the clear choice, despite its 300 W TDP and 700 W suggested PSU. The data does not support a performance head-to-head because the benchmarks measure different things. What the data does show is that the GTX 960A holds its own against newer mid-range cards in compute, while the RTX PRO 6000's Steel Nomad result suggests its advantages are not fully captured by that particular workload. Choose based on the software you must run, not on these two scores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has an average benchmark score of 11,998, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q has an average of 11,088. However, these scores come from different tests (Geekbench OpenCL versus 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12) and are not directly comparable.

Q: How does the GTX 960A compare to the GeForce GTX 1080?

A: The GTX 960A scores 0.3% higher than the GTX 1080 in its benchmark test, with scores of 11,998 versus 11,960. This is a negligible margin within typical measurement variance.

Q: What is the RTX PRO 6000's closest rival in performance?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q ties exactly with the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088, a 0% delta. Its next closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 550 at 0.1% behind, and the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at 0.4% behind.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 has 96 GB of GDDR7 memory with a 512-bit bus and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth. The GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the production statuses of these cards?

A: The GTX 960A is end-of-life, released on 2015-03-12. The RTX PRO 6000 is active production, released on 2025-03-17.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the RTX PRO 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 960A uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the RTX PRO 6000 uses GB202 on a 5 nm TSMC process. The GTX 960A packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a density of 12.6M per mm². The RTX PRO 6000 contains 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, achieving 122.9M per mm².

Clock speeds diverge significantly: the GTX 960A runs at 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost, while the RTX PRO 6000 runs at 1035 MHz base but boosts to 2280 MHz. Memory clocks also differ—1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GTX 960A versus 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) for the RTX PRO 6000. Memory configuration is starkly different: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus versus 96 GB GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, yielding bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s versus 1.79 TB/s.

Compute resources are an order of magnitude apart: the GTX 960A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the RTX PRO 6000 has 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The RTX PRO 6000 also adds 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores; the GTX 960A has none. Pixel rate is 18.82 GPixel/s versus 437.8 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 47.04 GTexel/s versus 1,714.6 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1.505 TFLOPS versus 109.7 TFLOPS; the RTX PRO 6000 also offers FP16 at 109.7 TFLOPS (1:1), while the GTX 960A has no listed FP16 figure.

Power and physical characteristics differ completely: the GTX 960A is a 75 W MXM module with no power connectors, while the RTX PRO 6000 is a 300 W dual-slot card with a 1x 16-pin connector and a 700 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the GTX 960A, versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1b for the RTX PRO 6000. The RTX PRO 6000 measures 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm; the GTX 960A has no listed dimensions. The launch MSRP for the RTX PRO 6000 is 8,565 USD; the GTX 960A has no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans two NVIDIA generations and represents a fundamental shift in GPU design philosophy. The GTX 960A is built on Maxwell, the architecture that prioritized power efficiency and modest compute improvements over its predecessor Kepler. Maxwell's GM107 chip is a small, low-power design intended for mobile and compact systems. It has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, relying entirely on traditional shader units for all graphics and compute work. Its DirectX 12 support is limited to the 11_0 feature level, which means it cannot access many modern rendering features like mesh shaders or variable rate shading.

The RTX PRO 6000 is built on Blackwell 2.0, NVIDIA's latest professional architecture. Blackwell represents a complete departure from Maxwell, with a unified shader design that incorporates dedicated RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor cores for AI and deep learning workloads. The 188 RT cores enable real-time ray tracing with advanced features like bounding volume hierarchy traversal, while the 752 tensor cores support FP16, INT8, and other mixed-precision formats critical for neural network inference and training. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing, mesh shaders, and sampler feedback.

The process node difference is equally significant: 28 nm versus 5 nm. This allows the RTX PRO 6000 to pack 92,200 million transistors into a 750 mm² die, achieving nearly ten times the transistor density of the GTX 960A (122.9M/mm² versus 12.6M/mm²). The smaller process also enables higher boost clocks (2280 MHz versus 1176 MHz) despite far more complex silicon. Memory architecture evolved from GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus to GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, delivering over 22 times the bandwidth. The RTX PRO 6000's FP16 throughput at 1:1 ratio with FP32 is notable—it indicates the card can handle half-precision compute at the same rate as full precision, a feature absent from the GTX 960A's specification sheet. These architectural differences explain why the RTX PRO 6000 carries a 300 W TDP and requires a 700 W PSU, while the GTX 960A operates within a 75 W envelope using no external power connectors.