NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M represent two very different moments in NVIDIA’s product stack. The T400 is a Turing-era workstation card built for professional display and light compute duties, while the GTX 965M is a Maxwell-era mobile GPU designed for gaming laptops. The recorded data shows that the T400 wins both benchmark comparisons, but the underlying architecture and specification differences tell a more nuanced story than the raw scores alone. The T400 sits at the 60th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 965M is at the 56th percentile, placing both cards in the middle of the overall performance distribution but with a measurable gap in favor of the newer workstation part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA T400 4 GB has an average benchmark score of 16792, compared to 14404 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M. That is a difference of roughly 2388 points in favor of the T400.

Q: How does the T400 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The T400 is 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600S, 0.8% behind the NVIDIA Tesla M4, 1.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7970M, and 1.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690. These are very small margins, indicating the T400 sits in a tightly packed performance cluster.

Q: How does the GTX 965M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 965M is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN, 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 11, and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Iris XE MAX Graphics. Like the T400, it sits within a narrow band of comparable GPUs.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 965M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the T400’s narrower bus, the faster GDDR6 memory brings its bandwidth nearly level with the GTX 965M.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The T400 is built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 965M is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The T400 achieves a transistor density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to 13.1 million for the GTX 965M.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The T400 has a boost clock of 1425 MHz, while the GTX 965M has a boost clock of 950 MHz. The T400’s boost clock is significantly higher, although the GTX 965M compensates with a much larger shader count.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The T400 is based on the Turing architecture, specifically the TU117 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Turing generation. The GTX 965M is based on Maxwell 2.0, using the GM204 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. This architectural gap is substantial: Turing introduced significant efficiency and feature improvements over Maxwell, and the recorded data reflects that in both performance and power characteristics.

The manufacturing process is a major point of separation. The T400 is fabricated on TSMC’s 12 nm process, while the GTX 965M uses TSMC’s 28 nm process. The T400 packs 4,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The GTX 965M contains 5,200 million transistors on a much larger 398 mm² die, yielding a density of only 13.1 million per square millimeter. The T400 is therefore a much denser chip, which is typical of a newer process node.

The memory architecture also differs. The T400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 64-bit bus and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 965M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The effective memory speeds tell the story: the T400’s memory runs at 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed, while the GTX 965M’s memory runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed. The T400’s GDDR6 memory runs at twice the effective data rate, which allows its narrower bus to match the GTX 965M’s bandwidth.

The compute resources are configured very differently. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GTX 965M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The GTX 965M has more than 2.5 times the shading units and more than double the TMUs and ROPs. Despite this, the T400’s higher clocks and architectural efficiency allow it to win in the benchmark comparisons.

Neither GPU features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely entirely on traditional rasterization and compute paths. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, meaning the API feature set is identical. The T400 is a single-slot card with three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GTX 965M is an MXM module with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The T400 has a 30 W TDP and requires a 200 W suggested power supply, while the GTX 965M has no recorded TDP or suggested PSU, reflecting its mobile design context.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two benchmark comparisons between these cards: one for OpenCL and one for Vulkan. The T400 wins both, taking 2 wins while the GTX 965M records 0 wins.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the T400 scores 17320 against the GTX 965M’s 14509. This gives the T400 a 19.4% advantage. The OpenCL workload is compute-heavy, and the T400’s Turing architecture appears to handle it more efficiently. The T400’s average benchmark score of 16792 is also well above the GTX 965M’s average of 14404, a gap of roughly 16.6%. The OpenCL result is the larger of the two wins, showing that the T400’s advantage is most pronounced in general-purpose compute tasks.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the T400 scores 16263 against 14299 for the GTX 965M. The margin here is 13.7%. Vulkan is a lower-level graphics API, and the T400’s advantage narrows slightly compared to OpenCL, but it still maintains a clear lead. The Vulkan result is consistent with the OpenCL result in direction, reinforcing the T400’s overall superiority in the recorded benchmarks.

The percentile rankings support the same conclusion. The T400 is at the 60th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 965M is at the 56th percentile. That four-point gap in percentile terms reflects the benchmark score difference of roughly 2388 points. The T400’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 7600S at 16696, the NVIDIA Tesla M4 at 16932, the AMD Radeon HD 7970M at 17019, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 at 17037. The T400 is within 1.4% of all of these, meaning it occupies a competitive position in a dense performance neighborhood.

The GTX 965M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 14385, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN at 14373, the AMD Radeon Vega 11 at 14352, and the Intel Iris XE MAX Graphics at 14315. The GTX 965M is ahead of all of these by margins ranging from 0.1% to 0.6%. This places the GTX 965M at the top of its immediate performance cluster, but that cluster sits clearly below the T400’s cluster. The data shows that the T400 occupies a performance tier that the GTX 965M cannot reach despite its much larger shader count.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA T400 4 GB outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M in both recorded tests. The T400 wins OpenCL by 19.4% and Vulkan by 13.7%, and its average benchmark score of 16792 is well above the GTX 965M’s 14404. For any workload represented by these benchmarks, the T400 is the stronger card.

The T400 is the appropriate choice for users who prioritize compute performance, modern architecture efficiency, and a professional form factor. Its Turing architecture, 12 nm process, and GDDR6 memory deliver higher performance per shader, and its single-slot design with three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs suits workstation environments. The 30 W TDP is notably low, and the suggested power supply of 200 W reflects its modest system requirements. The T400 also carries double the memory capacity at 4 GB, which matters for larger workloads.

The GTX 965M is the weaker card in this comparison, but its specifications still tell a coherent story. It has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, which are substantially higher counts than the T400’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, nearly identical to the T400’s 80.00 GB/s. The GTX 965M’s higher raw resource counts do not translate into higher benchmark scores, which indicates that the older Maxwell architecture is significantly less efficient per unit of compute hardware.

Users who already own a system based on the GTX 965M should note that the T400 represents a meaningful upgrade in the recorded benchmarks, but the two cards serve different platforms. The GTX 965M is an MXM module for laptops, while the T400 is a single-slot PCIe card. The T400’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and desktop form factor make it a drop-in option for workstation desktops, whereas the GTX 965M is tied to mobile systems with MXM-B (3.0) slots.

The data supports a clear recommendation: for compute and graphics workloads measured by OpenCL and Vulkan, the T400 is the superior GPU. The GTX 965M does not win any recorded comparison, and its only advantages lie in raw resource counts that fail to materialize in performance. The T400’s higher percentile ranking, higher average score, and consistent wins in both head-to-head tests make it the stronger choice wherever platform compatibility allows.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The T400 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, while the GTX 965M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0. Their generations are also different: the T400 belongs to Quadro Turing (Tx000), while the GTX 965M belongs to GeForce 900M. The T400 was released on 2021-05-05, while the GTX 965M was released on 2015-01-08, a gap of over six years.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The T400 is built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 965M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The T400 has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the GTX 965M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. Transistor density is 23.5 million per square millimeter for the T400 versus 13.1 million for the GTX 965M.

Clock speeds are substantially different. The T400 has a base clock of 420 MHz and a boost clock of 1425 MHz, while the GTX 965M has a base clock of 924 MHz and a boost clock of 950 MHz. The memory clocks are 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed for the T400, versus 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed for the GTX 965M.

Memory configuration differs in size, type, and bus width. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, while the GTX 965M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth is nearly identical: 80.00 GB/s for the T400 versus 80.19 GB/s for the GTX 965M.

Compute resource counts are much higher on the GTX 965M. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 965M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 22.80 GPixel/s for the T400 versus 30.40 GPixel/s for the GTX 965M. Texture rate is 34.20 GTexel/s for the T400 versus 60.80 GTexel/s for the GTX 965M. FP32 performance is 1,094.4 GFLOPS for the T400 versus 1.946 TFLOPS for the GTX 965M. The T400 also has FP16 performance of 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1), while the GTX 965M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and form factor differ as well. The T400 has a 30 W TDP, a single-slot design, and a suggested power supply of 200 W. The GTX 965M has no recorded TDP and uses an MXM Module form factor. The T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 965M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the T400, while the GTX 965M’s outputs are described as portable device dependent.

Production status and lineage also differ. Both are end-of-life. The T400’s predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The GTX 965M’s predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP.