GeForce GTX 965M vs Radeon RX 560
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 965M outperforms Radeon RX 560 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 434 | 423 |
| Place by popularity | 64 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.60 | 0.93 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | N16E-GS, N16E-GR |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 5 January 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | no data |
| Current price | $381 (3.8x MSRP) | $1546 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 560 has 72% better value for money than GTX 965M.
Detailed specifications
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 | 1024 | 1024 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 944 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | 950 / 1151 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 81.60 | 73.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,611 gflops | 2,355 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon RX 560 and GeForce GTX 965M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 170 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI options | no data | + |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7000 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Connectivity and outputs
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | + |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| G-SYNC support | no data | + |
Supported 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 | no data | 2.0 |
| GameWorks | no data | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| BatteryBoost | no data | + |
| Ansel | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1 |
| 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.
GeForce GTX 965M outperforms Radeon RX 560 by 3% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 965M outperforms Radeon RX 560 by 3% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Radeon RX 560 outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 29% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Radeon RX 560 outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 11% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
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 | 35
−31.4%
| 46
+31.4%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
−4.2%
| 25
+4.2%
|
| 4K | 18−21
−16.7%
| 21
+16.7%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.43 | 9.76 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 5 January 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 560 and GeForce GTX 965M.
Be aware that Radeon RX 560 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 965M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
