RTX PRO 6000 vs GeForce GTX 765M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 765M SLI with RTX PRO 6000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 765M SLI
2013
2x 2 GB GDDR5, 130 Watt
9.78
+48.9%

765M SLI outperforms RTX PRO 6000 by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking486609
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.780.84
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameno dataGB202
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date30 May 2013 (12 years ago)2025 (recently)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores153624064
Core clock speed850 MHz2017 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2407 MHz
Number of transistors2x 2540 Million92,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt600 Watt
Texture fill rateno data1,810
Floating-point processing powerno data115.8 TFLOPS
ROPsno data176
TMUsno data752
Tensor Coresno data752
Ray Tracing Coresno data188
L1 Cacheno data23.5 MB
L2 Cacheno data128 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 5.0 x16
Lengthno data304 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 16-pin
SLI options+-

VRAM capacity and type

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 typeGDDR5GDDR7
Maximum RAM amount2x 2 GB96 GB
Memory bus width2x 128 Bit512 Bit
Memory clock speed4000 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data1.79 TB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectorsno data4x DisplayPort 2.1b

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.8
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.4
CUDA+10.1
DLSS-+

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 HD71
+57.8%
45−50
−57.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+54.3%
35−40
−54.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+63%
27−30
−63%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+54.3%
35−40
−54.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Escape from Tarkov 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%
Fortnite 55−60
+68.6%
35−40
−68.6%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%
Forza Horizon 5 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
Valorant 90−95
+56.7%
60−65
−56.7%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+63%
27−30
−63%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+54.3%
35−40
−54.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 197
+51.5%
130−140
−51.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Dota 2 70−75
+57.8%
45−50
−57.8%
Escape from Tarkov 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%
Fortnite 55−60
+68.6%
35−40
−68.6%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%
Forza Horizon 5 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+54.2%
24−27
−54.2%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Valorant 90−95
+56.7%
60−65
−56.7%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+63%
27−30
−63%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Dota 2 70−75
+57.8%
45−50
−57.8%
Escape from Tarkov 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Valorant 90−95
+56.7%
60−65
−56.7%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+68.6%
35−40
−68.6%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+50%
50−55
−50%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+66.7%
30−33
−66.7%
Valorant 100−110
+55.7%
70−75
−55.7%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Escape from Tarkov 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+50%
16−18
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Valorant 50−55
+73.3%
30−33
−73.3%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
Escape from Tarkov 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

This is how GTX 765M SLI and RTX PRO 6000 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 765M SLI is 58% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.78 6.57
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 600 Watt

GTX 765M SLI has a 48.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 361.5% lower power consumption.

RTX PRO 6000, on the other hand, has a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 765M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the RTX PRO 6000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 765M SLI is a notebook graphics card while RTX PRO 6000 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M SLI
GeForce GTX 765M SLI
NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000
RTX PRO 6000

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


1.3 25 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 765M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 68 votes

Rate RTX PRO 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 765M SLI or RTX PRO 6000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.