Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce GTX 560M SLI vs 950M
Aggregated performance score
950M outperforms 560M SLI by 3% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 528 | 537 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Value for money | 0.81 | 4.05 |
Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
GPU code name | N16P-GT | N12E-GS |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Release date | 12 March 2015 (9 years old) | 6 January 2011 (13 years old) |
Current price | $797 | $149 |
GTX 560M SLI has 400% better value for money than GTX 950M.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 384 |
CUDA cores | 640 | no data |
Core clock speed | 914 MHz | 775 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 1,870 million | no data |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 44.96 | no data |
Floating-point performance | 1,439 gflops | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 950M and GeForce GTX 560M SLI compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
Laptop size | medium sized | large |
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
Memory type | DDR3 or GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1000 or 2500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 32 or 80 GB/s | no data |
Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
Display Connectors | No outputs | no data |
VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
HDMI | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
GameStream | + | no data |
GeForce ShadowPlay | + | no data |
GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
GameWorks | + | no data |
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
Optimus | + | no data |
BatteryBoost | + | no data |
Ansel | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11 |
Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
Vulkan | 1.1.126 | no data |
CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
950M outperforms 560M SLI by 3% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
560M SLI outperforms 950M by 11% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
950M outperforms 560M SLI by 21% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
Full HD | 30
+11.1%
| 27−30
−11.1%
|
1440p | 21
+16.7%
| 18−21
−16.7%
|
4K | 16
+14.3%
| 14−16
−14.3%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 23
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 31
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Far Cry 5 | 23
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 22
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+4.5%
|
21−24
−4.5%
|
Hitman 3 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 19
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 26
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Far Cry 5 | 21
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 20
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+4.5%
|
21−24
−4.5%
|
Hitman 3 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 5
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 15
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 11
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 20
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Far Cry 5 | 19
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 19
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+4.5%
|
21−24
−4.5%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 12
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how GTX 950M and GTX 560M SLI compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GTX 950M is 11.1% faster than GTX 560M SLI
1440p resolution:
- GTX 950M is 16.7% faster than GTX 560M SLI
4K resolution:
- GTX 950M is 14.3% faster than GTX 560M SLI
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 950M is 100% faster than the GTX 560M SLI.
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 560M SLI is 80% faster than the GTX 950M.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 950M is ahead in 30 tests (44%)
- GTX 560M SLI is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (50%)
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance score | 6.68 | 6.46 |
Recency | 12 March 2015 | 6 January 2011 |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 950M and GeForce GTX 560M SLI.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.