NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M vs NVIDIA Tesla M4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between these two mobile-class NVIDIA parts: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Tesla M4 scores 16,932, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M scores 14,509. The Tesla M4 wins by a margin of 16.7%. This is not a narrow victory; the delta represents a substantial performance gap in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL.

Looking at the broader context, the Tesla M4’s average benchmark score of 16,932 places it in the 60th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GTX 965M, by contrast, averages 14,404 across its recorded benchmarks, landing in the 56th percentile. The difference in percentile ranking reflects the M4’s clear edge in overall computing capability. The GTX 965M does have an additional recorded Vulkan score of 14,299, but that does not change its average standing relative to the M4.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize these results. The Tesla M4 sits within a tight cluster: the AMD Radeon HD 7970M averages 17,019, just 0.5% ahead; the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 averages 17,037, 0.6% ahead; the NVIDIA T400 4 GB averages 16,792, 0.8% behind; and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT averages 17,083, 0.9% ahead. The M4 is effectively in a dead heat with all four, with deltas under 1%. This indicates that the M4’s compute performance is firmly in the upper-midrange tier, competitive with much newer and older parts alike.

For the GTX 965M, its nearest rivals show a similar clustering but at a lower absolute level. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 averages 14,385, only 0.1% ahead; the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN averages 14,373, 0.2% ahead; the AMD Radeon Vega 11 averages 14,352, 0.4% ahead; and the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics averages 14,315, 0.6% ahead. The GTX 965M’s 14,404 average is within 0.6% of all four, meaning it sits in a bandwidth of performance where no rival is decisively faster. The practical takeaway from the data is that the Tesla M4 outperforms the GTX 965M by a meaningful 16.7% in the one head-to-head test, and that gap is consistent with their respective positions among their nearest peers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M4 wins with a score of 16,932 versus the GeForce GTX 965M’s 14,509, a delta of 16.7%.

Q: How does the Tesla M4 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The M4’s average score of 16,932 is within 0.9% of all four nearest rivals: the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019, 0.5% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17,037, 0.6% ahead), NVIDIA T400 4 GB (16,792, 0.8% behind), and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (17,083, 0.9% ahead).

Q: What is the GTX 965M’s standing relative to its nearest competitors?

A: The GTX 965M’s average score of 14,404 is within 0.6% of all four nearest rivals: AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385, 0.1% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373, 0.2% ahead), AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14,352, 0.4% ahead), and Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14,315, 0.6% ahead).

Q: Does the GTX 965M have any benchmark where it beats the Tesla M4?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Tesla M4 wins the only shared test (Geekbench OpenCL). The GTX 965M does have a separate Vulkan score of 14,299, but there is no corresponding Vulkan result for the M4 in the database.

Q: How do their percentile rankings differ?

A: The Tesla M4 is in the 60th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce GTX 965M is in the 56th percentile. The M4’s higher percentile corresponds to its higher average score.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Tesla M4 has an average benchmark score of 16,932. The GTX 965M has an average of 14,404, derived from its two recorded scores (14,509 OpenCL and 14,299 Vulkan).

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Tesla M4 is the higher-performing part. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 16.7%, holds a higher average score (16,932 versus 14,404), and occupies a higher percentile rank (60th versus 56th). If the selection criterion is raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL, the Tesla M4 is the clear choice.

The GeForce GTX 965M, however, is not without merit. Its average score places it in a very tight cluster with its nearest rivals, all within 0.6%, meaning it performs exactly as expected for its tier. The GTX 965M also offers a Vulkan benchmark score of 14,299, which may be relevant for workloads that leverage that API, though no comparable Vulkan result exists for the M4 in the database to make a direct comparison.

For a user prioritizing maximum compute performance in a single-slot, low-power form factor, the Tesla M4 is supported by the data. For a user who needs a mobile GPU with a portable-device-dependent display output and no external power connectors, the GTX 965M is the only one of the two that fits that physical profile. The Tesla M4 has no display outputs at all, making it unsuitable for any role that requires driving a monitor directly. The GTX 965M, as an MXM module, is designed for laptops where the display is handled by the host system. Thus, the verdict depends on the use case: compute density favors the M4; mobile integration favors the GTX 965M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several fundamental specifications. The Tesla M4 uses the GM206 chip, while the GTX 965M uses the GM204 chip. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge significantly: the M4 has 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, while the GTX 965M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The transistor density is slightly higher on the GTX 965M at 13.1M / mm² versus 12.9M / mm² for the M4.

Clock speeds also differ. The Tesla M4 has a base clock of 872 MHz and a boost clock of 1072 MHz, while the GTX 965M has a higher base clock of 924 MHz but a lower boost clock of 950 MHz. Memory clocks are distinct as well: the M4 runs at 1375 MHz with 5.5 Gbps effective, while the GTX 965M runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. Memory capacity differs: the M4 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 965M has 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the resulting bandwidth is 88.00 GB/s for the M4 versus 80.19 GB/s for the GTX 965M.

The power profile is notable. The Tesla M4 has a TDP of 50 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 965M has no recorded TDP and no suggested PSU. The M4 is a single-slot card with no power connectors; the GTX 965M is an MXM module with no power connectors. The bus interface differs: the M4 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 965M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are also different: the M4 has no outputs, while the GTX 965M’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, but they are implemented on different chips. The Tesla M4 uses GM206, while the GTX 965M uses GM204. The generation names differ: the M4 belongs to the Tesla Maxwell (Mxx) generation, while the GTX 965M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. Their predecessors and successors also differ. The M4’s predecessor is Tesla Kepler and its successor is Tesla Pascal. The GTX 965M’s predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

The compute resources are identical in count: both have 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The pixel rate and texture rate reflect the clock differences: the M4 achieves 34.30 GPixel/s and 68.61 GTexel/s, while the GTX 965M achieves 30.40 GPixel/s and 60.80 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.195 TFLOPS for the M4 versus 1.946 TFLOPS for the GTX 965M, consistent with the M4’s higher boost clock. Neither GPU has a recorded FP16 figure.

The API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The release dates differ, with the GTX 965M launching earlier on January 8, 2015, and the Tesla M4 launching later on November 9, 2015. Both are end-of-life products. The M4 is built on the GM206 chip with a smaller die and fewer transistors, while the GTX 965M uses the larger GM204 die with significantly more transistors, which explains the GTX 965M’s higher base clock but lower boost clock. The architecture is the same, but the chip-level implementation leads to different performance characteristics, with the M4 coming out ahead in the recorded benchmarks.