NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single shared benchmark between these two GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile scores 56,518 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998 points. This represents a 371.1% advantage for the RTX A2000 Mobile, meaning it delivers roughly 4.7 times the raw compute performance in this workload. The magnitude of this gap is substantial, and it establishes a clear performance hierarchy between the two parts.

Looking at the database context, the RTX A2000 Mobile holds an average benchmark score of 13,821 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 660M at 13,812 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13,871 (0.4% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT at 13,745 (0.6% ahead), and the NVIDIA Tesla K10 at 14,029 (1.5% behind). The RTX A2000 Mobile sits in the 55th percentile among all GPUs, placing it squarely in the mid-range tier. Its individual scores show a wide spread, with the PassMark DirectX 9 test at 115, PassMark G2D at 491, and PassMark G3D at 9,611, while the compute-focused tests show 4,334 in PassMark GPU Compute and 53,146 in Geekbench Vulkan.

The GTX 960A, by contrast, records an average benchmark score of 11,998, derived from that single OpenCL result. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 at 11,960 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT at 11,842 (1.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 at 11,680 (2.7% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT at 11,627 (3.2% ahead). The GTX 960A lands in the 51st percentile among all GPUs. Because the head-to-head dataset contains only this one shared test, the OpenCL result forms the entirety of the direct comparison, and it favors the RTX A2000 Mobile in every measurable way.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations and manufacturing approaches. The RTX A2000 Mobile is built on the Ampere architecture, using the GA107 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It integrates 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The GTX 960A, on the other hand, uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The difference in process technology is stark, and the density figures reflect it, with the Ampere part packing more than three times the transistors per area.

The compute resources diverge sharply as well. The RTX A2000 Mobile carries 2,560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. It also includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, features that are entirely absent from the GTX 960A. The older GPU offers 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor hardware. The floating-point throughput tells the story: the RTX A2000 Mobile achieves 8.637 TFLOPS in FP32, while the GTX 960A manages 1.505 TFLOPS. The RTX A2000 Mobile also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it can match its FP32 rate of 8.637 TFLOPS, whereas the GTX 960A lists no FP16 capability.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and speed. The RTX A2000 Mobile uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is 1500 MHz, translating to 12 Gbps effective. The GTX 960A uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128 bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 80.19 GB/s, with a memory clock of 1253 MHz and 5 Gbps effective. The RTX A2000 Mobile more than doubles the memory bandwidth, which matters for texture-heavy and large-dataset workloads.

Clock speeds also differ, though the architecture and memory improvements carry more weight. The RTX A2000 Mobile runs at a base of 1215 MHz and boosts to 1687 MHz. The GTX 960A runs at 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost. Pixel and texture rates follow the hardware count: the RTX A2000 Mobile posts 80.98 GPixel/s and 135.0 GTexel/s, while the GTX 960A posts 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s. Interface and power delivery also differ, with the RTX A2000 Mobile using PCIe 4.0 x16 and the GTX 960A using MXM-B (3.0). Both draw power without external connectors, but the RTX A2000 Mobile has a 95 W TDP versus 75 W for the GTX 960A.

API support reflects the newer architecture. The RTX A2000 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX A2000 Mobile also has a clear generational lineage, with its predecessor listed as Quadro Turing-M and successor as Ada-MW, while the GTX 960A lists its predecessor as GeForce 800A and no successor.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the RTX A2000 Mobile wins in every category where both have been measured. The single head-to-head OpenCL test shows a 371.1% margin, which indicates a fundamental performance class difference. The RTX A2000 Mobile also holds advantages in raw throughput metrics: its FP32 rate of 8.637 TFLOPS is roughly 5.7 times the GTX 960A's 1.505 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s gives the newer card a clear edge in bandwidth-bound scenarios.

For the GTX 960A, the wins are limited to power efficiency and physical footprint, though these are not directly benchmarked. It draws 75 W versus 95 W, a 20 W difference, and its MXM Module form factor differs from the IGP slot width of the RTX A2000 Mobile. However, in terms of measurable performance, the GTX 960A does not register a single win in the database. Its percentile ranking of 51 versus 55 for the RTX A2000 Mobile places it slightly lower in the overall distribution, and its average score of 11,998 versus 13,821 reinforces the gap.

Use-case analysis follows the hardware capabilities. The RTX A2000 Mobile, with ray tracing cores and tensor cores, is designed for workloads that leverage those features, such as real-time ray tracing and AI-accelerated tasks. The GTX 960A, lacking those units, is limited to traditional rasterization and compute. The RTX A2000 Mobile's higher texture rate of 135.0 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s suggests better performance in texture-bound scenes. Its larger 4 GB frame buffer versus 2 GB also allows for higher resolution textures and larger working sets.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX A2000 Mobile than the GTX 960A in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile scores 56,518 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 960A scores 11,998, giving the newer card a 371.1% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. The RTX A2000 Mobile has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The GTX 960A lists no ray tracing or tensor core hardware.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile delivers 192.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus. The GTX 960A delivers 80.19 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same bus width.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The GTX 960A contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile achieves 8.637 TFLOPS in FP32. The GTX 960A achieves 1.505 TFLOPS.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 13,821 across all tests. The GTX 960A has an average of 11,998 from its single recorded test.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms the GTX 960A in every recorded benchmark and every key specification. The OpenCL score difference of 371.1% is not a marginal improvement; it represents a generational leap in compute capability. The RTX A2000 Mobile's architecture brings features the GTX 960A simply cannot offer, including ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio. Its memory subsystem is more than twice as fast in bandwidth, and its shading unit count is quadrupled.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload requirements. The RTX A2000 Mobile is suited for modern applications that can utilize its feature set, such as ray-traced rendering, AI inference, and compute-heavy tasks. The GTX 960A, while functional for basic graphics and legacy workloads, lacks the hardware resources to compete in these areas. The GTX 960A does draw less power at 75 W versus 95 W, which may matter in ultra-low-power embedded scenarios, but that is the only point in its favor.

The RTX A2000 Mobile also carries a higher percentile ranking at 55 versus 51, and its nearest rivals in the database are all within a tight band around 13,700 to 14,000 average score, placing it in a competitive mid-range tier. The GTX 960A's nearest rivals are similarly clustered around 11,600 to 12,000, a full tier below. For any performance-sensitive application, the RTX A2000 Mobile is the clear choice.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Maxwell |

| Chip | GA107 | GM107 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1215 MHz | 1097 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1687 MHz | 1176 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 640 |

| TMUs | 80 | 40 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 20 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 80 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 80.98 GPixel/s | 18.82 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 135.0 GTexel/s | 47.04 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.637 TFLOPS | 1.505 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.637 TFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| TDP | 95 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

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

| Release Date | 2021-04-11 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing-M | GeForce 800A |

| Successor | Ada-MW | None |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |