AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, separated by nearly seven years of architectural evolution. The data reveals a stark generational gap: in the two directly comparable benchmark tests, the RX 6500M decisively outperforms the GTX 960M, yet the older card holds its own in the broader performance percentile ranking. This comparison is less about a close contest and more about quantifying how far mobile GPU technology has advanced, while also noting where the older architecture still manages to compete in the aggregate statistics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two GPUs is limited to two specific tests, but the results are unambiguous. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 11,045 points. This gives the RX 6500M a massive 249.4% lead, indicating that the newer AMD part delivers more than three times the raw compute throughput in this particular workload. The margin is even more pronounced in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the RX 6500M scores 43,837 points against the GTX 960M's 8,245 points, resulting in a 431.7% advantage. This suggests that the RX 6500M's modern RDNA 2.0 architecture is exceptionally well-suited to the low-level, multi-threaded nature of Vulkan, while the GTX 960M's older Maxwell design struggles to keep pace.

These head-to-head results paint a picture of overwhelming superiority for the RX 6500M. However, it is importantly the GTX 960M has no wins in this direct comparison, with a final tally of 2 wins for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA. The sheer scale of these deltas—249.4% and 431.7%—implies that the RX 6500M is not just faster, but in a completely different performance class for these modern API benchmarks. The data suggests that the GTX 960M, while competent for its time, is simply outmatched by the architectural advancements and raw compute power of the newer chip.

Where Each One Wins

Despite the RX 6500M's dominance in the direct head-to-head benchmarks, the broader performance picture is more nuanced. Looking at the average benchmark scores, the RX 6500M achieves 10,362 points, while the GTX 960M averages 9,645 points. This represents a modest 7.4% overall advantage for the AMD card, which is far smaller than the deltas seen in the Geekbench tests. This discrepancy suggests that the GTX 960M performs relatively better in certain legacy or DirectX-based workloads, where its architecture is more optimized, while the RX 6500M excels in compute-heavy and modern API scenarios.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The RX 6500M sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960M is at the 46th percentile. This is a remarkably narrow gap, given the generational difference. It implies that in the aggregate of all benchmark data, the two cards are nearly equivalent, with the RX 6500M holding only a slight edge. Looking at the nearest rivals for each card, the RX 6500M competes with the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (0.4% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (0.9% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX 550X (1.1% slower). Meanwhile, the GTX 960M sits alongside the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (0.1% faster), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (0.1% slower), and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (0.2% slower). This data indicates that while the RX 6500M is the clear winner in modern benchmarks, the GTX 960M remains a surprisingly competitive part in overall average performance, likely due to its strengths in older DirectX 11 and 9 workloads.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental differences between these two GPUs are rooted in their respective architectures and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M uses the older Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This process node difference is immense, with the RX 6500M packing 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the GTX 960M has 1,870 million transistors on a larger 148 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.6 million per square millimeter. This means the RX 6500M crams over four times as many transistors into a smaller space, enabling significantly higher clock speeds and more compute units.

The core configurations also diverge sharply. The RX 6500M features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs), along with 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The GTX 960M, by comparison, has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing hardware at all. This gives the RX 6500M a theoretical peak FP32 performance of 4.915 TFLOPS, compared to just 1.505 TFLOPS for the GTX 960M. The AMD card also supports half-precision FP16 at 9.830 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card has no FP16 capability listed. These architectural differences explain the massive performance gap in compute-heavy tasks, as the RX 6500M simply has more processing units running at higher clock speeds. The base clock of 2000 MHz and boost clock of 2400 MHz on the RX 6500M dwarf the GTX 960M's 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost, further widening the gap.

Memory technology and bandwidth also tell a story of progress. The RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960M also has 4 GB of memory, but it is GDDR5 on a wider 128-bit bus, providing only 80.19 GB/s. While the GTX 960M has a wider memory interface, the higher speed of GDDR6 on the RX 6500M results in significantly more bandwidth. The power envelope also differs, with the RX 6500M rated at a 50 W TDP and the GTX 960M at 75 W, meaning the newer AMD part achieves far higher performance while consuming less power. The bus interface further reflects their eras: the RX 6500M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the GTX 960M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module interface, which is a legacy laptop form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is significantly faster in compute, with an FP32 rating of 4.915 TFLOPS compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M's 1.505 TFLOPS. This is reflected in the Geekbench OpenCL score, where the RX 6500M leads by 249.4%.

Q: Does the GTX 960M have any advantages over the RX 6500M?

A: Yes, in terms of overall average benchmark score, the gap is much narrower. The RX 6500M averages 10,362 points versus 9,645 for the GTX 960M, a difference of just 7.4%. The GTX 960M also sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, only two points below the RX 6500M's 48th percentile.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two chips?

A: The RX 6500M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm process, while the GTX 960M uses Maxwell on 28 nm. The RX 6500M has 1,024 shading units and 16 ray tracing cores, whereas the GTX 960M has 640 shading units and no ray tracing cores.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: Both have 4 GB of memory, but the RX 6500M uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 960M uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s. The RX 6500M's higher-speed memory provides more bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The RX 6500M has a lower TDP of 50 W compared to the GTX 960M's 75 W, while delivering significantly higher benchmark scores. This suggests the newer AMD part is substantially more power-efficient per watt.

Q: What is the performance gap in the Vulkan API?

A: The RX 6500M scores 43,837 points in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 431.7% higher than the GTX 960M's 8,245 points. This massive delta indicates the RX 6500M is far better optimized for modern graphics APIs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6500M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 1097 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 1176 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2191 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 640 |

| TMUs | 64 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 16 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 76.80 GPixel/s | 18.82 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 153.6 GTexel/s | 47.04 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.915 TFLOPS | 1.505 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1) | N/A |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2015-03-12 |

The Verdict

The data overwhelmingly favors the AMD Radeon RX 6500M for anyone prioritizing modern compute performance, DirectX 12 Ultimate features, or ray tracing capabilities. With a 249.4% lead in OpenCL and a 431.7% lead in Vulkan, the RX 6500M is the clear choice for workloads that leverage these APIs. Its higher pixel rate (76.80 GPixel/s vs 18.82 GPixel/s) and texture rate (153.6 GTexel/s vs 47.04 GTexel/s) further cement its superiority in graphics-intensive tasks. The lower 50 W TDP also makes it a more efficient option for thin-and-light laptops, delivering more performance with less power draw.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M should not be entirely dismissed. Its average benchmark score of 9,645 is only 7.4% lower than the RX 6500M's 10,362, and its 46th percentile ranking is nearly identical. This suggests that in a broad mix of legacy games and applications—particularly those optimized for DirectX 11 or 9—the GTX 960M remains a competent performer. Its wider 128-bit memory bus, although slower in bandwidth, may also offer advantages in certain memory-latency-sensitive workloads. For users running older software or seeking a budget-friendly used laptop, the GTX 960M still holds value, but the RX 6500M is the superior choice for future-proofing and modern gaming.