NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a decisive generational shift: the RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms the GTX 965M in every recorded head-to-head test, with the older card trailing by over 70% in both available benchmarks. However, the GTX 965M holds a curious edge in overall percentile ranking, and its nearest rivals differ significantly from those of the newer card, indicating that raw performance is not the only metric defining their positions in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 Mobile is the clear winner in every computational workload recorded in the benchmark data. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 56,518 against the GTX 965M’s 14,509, a delta of -74.3% from the perspective of the older card. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: 53,146 for the RTX A2000 Mobile versus 14,299 for the GTX 965M, a -73.1% gap. These are not marginal improvements; the newer card delivers roughly four times the compute throughput in both API environments.

The GTX 965M, however, claims a narrow victory in the percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database. It sits at the 56th percentile, while the RTX A2000 Mobile sits at the 55th. This is a small but notable divergence, suggesting that while the RTX A2000 Mobile produces far higher absolute scores, the distribution of scores across all GPUs places the older Maxwell part slightly higher relative to its contemporaries. The GTX 965M’s average benchmark score of 14,404 is also higher than the RTX A2000 Mobile’s 13,821, though this average is computed from only two tests for the former and nine for the latter.

For the RTX A2000 Mobile, the strongest workload appears to be DirectX 9, where it scores 115 in the PassMark test, followed by DirectX 11 at 68 and DirectX 10 at 57. The GTX 965M has no PassMark data, so its strengths can only be inferred from the Geekbench results. In practical terms, the RTX A2000 Mobile wins in all compute and graphics API scenarios, while the GTX 965M’s only advantage lies in its slightly better percentile standing among all GPUs, a metric that reflects its position within the database rather than its raw capability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, process nodes, and feature sets. The GTX 965M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A2000 Mobile uses the GA107 chip based on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This process shrink is substantial, and it enables the Ampere chip to pack 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, compared to 5,200 million transistors in the 398 mm² Maxwell die. Transistor density jumps from 13.1M per mm² to 43.5M per mm², a 3.3x improvement.

The RTX A2000 Mobile introduces hardware features that simply did not exist in the GTX 965M: 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. These are absent from the Maxwell part, which lacks both RT and tensor acceleration. The shader configuration also differs dramatically. The RTX A2000 Mobile has 2,560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, while the GTX 965M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The newer card has 2.5x the shading units, 1.25x the TMUs, and 1.5x the ROPs.

Memory subsystems reflect the generational gap as well. The GTX 965M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A2000 Mobile doubles the capacity to 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus, but nearly 2.4x the bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: base clock of 1,215 MHz versus 924 MHz, boost clock of 1,687 MHz versus 950 MHz. Memory clock is 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Compute rates scale accordingly. The RTX A2000 Mobile delivers 8.637 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 1.946 TFLOPS for the GTX 965M. It also provides FP16 at 8.637 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the GTX 965M has no listed FP16 capability. Pixel rate and texture rate are similarly higher: 80.98 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s, and 135.0 GTexel/s versus 60.80 GTexel/s, respectively.

The bus interface differs as well: the GTX 965M uses MXM-B (3.0) and is a slot-width MXM module, while the RTX A2000 Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and is an IGP form factor. Power delivery is listed as none for both, but the RTX A2000 Mobile has a TDP of 95 W, while the GTX 965M has no TDP listed. The RTX A2000 Mobile also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 965M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile scores 56,518, which is 74.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M’s 14,509.

Q: Does the GTX 965M outperform the RTX A2000 Mobile in any benchmark?

A: No. The RTX A2000 Mobile wins both head-to-head benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan). The GTX 965M’s only advantage is its 56th percentile ranking versus the RTX A2000 Mobile’s 55th.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The GTX 965M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A2000 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 Mobile support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: Yes. It has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The GTX 965M has neither.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile, at 43.5M transistors per mm², compared to 13.1M per mm² for the GTX 965M. This is due to the 8 nm process versus the 28 nm process.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for each GPU?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile delivers 8.637 TFLOPS, while the GTX 965M delivers 1.946 TFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The most significant differences are in process node (8 nm versus 28 nm), transistor count (8,700 million versus 5,200 million), and die size (200 mm² versus 398 mm²). The RTX A2000 Mobile has more shading units (2,560 vs 1,024), more TMUs (80 vs 64), and more ROPs (48 vs 32). It also adds 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, which are absent from the GTX 965M.

Memory capacity doubles from 2 GB to 4 GB, and the memory type changes from GDDR5 to GDDR6. Bandwidth increases from 80.19 GB/s to 192.0 GB/s. Clock speeds are higher on the RTX A2000 Mobile: base clock of 1,215 MHz versus 924 MHz, boost clock of 1,687 MHz versus 950 MHz, and memory clock of 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Compute rates show the largest gaps. FP32 performance is 8.637 TFLOPS versus 1.946 TFLOPS. The RTX A2000 Mobile also lists FP16 at 8.637 TFLOPS (1:1), while the GTX 965M has no FP16 entry. Pixel rate is 80.98 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 135.0 GTexel/s versus 60.80 GTexel/s.

The bus interface changes from MXM-B (3.0) to PCIe 4.0 x16, and the form factor from MXM Module to IGP. The RTX A2000 Mobile has a TDP of 95 W, while the GTX 965M has no TDP listed. DirectX support improves from 12 (12_1) to 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RTX A2000 Mobile has 8,700 million transistors versus 5,200 million, and a transistor density of 43.5M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm². The RTX A2000 Mobile uses Samsung as its foundry, while the GTX 965M uses TSMC.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test provides the largest single gap between the two GPUs. The RTX A2000 Mobile scores 56,518, while the GTX 965M scores 14,509. This represents a delta of -74.3% for the older card, meaning the RTX A2000 Mobile is approximately 3.9x faster in raw OpenCL compute. This is consistent with the architectural differences: the Ampere chip has 2.5x the shading units, nearly 2.4x the memory bandwidth, and a much higher boost clock, all of which contribute to the overwhelming compute advantage.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar pattern. The RTX A2000 Mobile scores 53,146, while the GTX 965M scores 14,299, a delta of -73.1%. This is slightly smaller than the OpenCL gap but still represents a roughly 3.7x performance advantage for the newer card. The Vulkan test likely benefits from the newer architecture’s improved API support, though both cards list Vulkan 1.4 in their specifications.

Beyond these two head-to-head tests, the RTX A2000 Mobile has additional PassMark results that the GTX 965M lacks entirely. The PassMark G3D score is 9,611, and the GPU compute score is 4,334. DirectX scores range from 115 in DirectX 9 down to 47 in DirectX 12, with DirectX 11 at 68 and DirectX 10 at 57. The G2D score is 491. These results cannot be compared directly to the GTX 965M, but they provide a fuller picture of the RTX A2000 Mobile’s capabilities across legacy and modern APIs.

The nearest rival data further contextualizes the performance levels. The GTX 965M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, with an average score of 14,385, just 0.1% off. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN is 0.2% behind, and the AMD Radeon Vega 11 is 0.4% behind. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 0.6% behind. The RTX A2000 Mobile’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 660M, with an average score of 13,812, just 0.1% off. The AMD Radeon RX 570X is actually 0.4% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is 0.6% behind. The NVIDIA Tesla K10 is 1.5% ahead. These rivalries show that while the RTX A2000 Mobile produces far higher absolute scores, its average benchmark score of 13,821 places it in a comparable percentile bracket to the GTX 965M’s 14,404, leading to the 56th versus 55th percentile split.