Besides Hitman Absolution, Thief and Ryse: Son of Rome, you also have to live with dropped frames in the Ultra-preset in Crysis 3 and Dragon Age: Inquisition. Speaking of the highest settings: As expected, the performance of the GTX 960M is not always sufficient for the maximum details. Wolfenstein: The New Order requires at least 3 GB VRAM for the highest settings. Those titles run slightly better on the Kepler GTX 860M (4 GB video memory). That 2 GB video memory is not really sufficient anymore is apparent when you want to play Shadow of Mordor, Assassin's Creed Unity or Watch Dogs, for example. The GeForce GTX 965M, however, only has an advantage of 15% (GTX 860M: -8% Maxwell, -17% Kepler).
If you look at all the tested titles you can see that the GTX 960M is more than 60% behind the GTX 970M and more than 100% behind the GTX 980M in the Ultra-preset (1920x1080, maximum detail, anti-aliasing). The differences are also huge in gaming benchmarks. Once again, the new GPU cannot compete with the top models: +69% for the GTX 970M (91.6 fps) and + 111% for the GTX 980M (119 fps). With 56.3 frames per second, the GTX 960M is between the Maxwell GTX 860M (49.5 fps) and the GTX 965M (66.3 fps). The differences are similar in the Unigine Heaven 3.0 benchmark, but the Kepler architecture can actually close the gap a bit. We want to use the GPU score in the Fire Strike sequence for a comparison with the GTX 860M: 4,418 points results in an advantage of 12% over the Maxwell predecessor (3,936 points Schenker XMG A504) as well as 39% over the Kepler GTX 860M (3,174 points Schenker W504), although this card was tested with an older GPU driver. A GeForce GTX 965M is 21% faster in this scenario (17,096 points Schenker XMG P705). The results of the synthetic benchmarks are not really surprising, starting with the Sky Diver test of the current 3DMark: The GTX 960M manages a GPU score of 14,178 points, which is 54% behind the GTX 980M (30,797 points MSI GT72 2QE) and exactly 40% behind the GTX 970M (23,619 points Alienware 15). Still, thanks to the higher number of shaders (GM204 chip with 1,024 CUDA cores), the GTX 965M is faster nonetheless. The GTX 970M is also better suited for gaming when you consider the 1,280 shaders and 3 up to 6 GB video memory (192-bit interface).Īll in all, the performance of the GTX 960M is close to the GTX 965M, which also suffers from the small memory interface (128-bit) in some titles and even has a slightly lower clock (924-950 MHz). The GTX 980M has more than twice as many shaders (1,536 CUDA cores) and 4 up to 8 GB GDDR5 video memory (256-bit interface) is better for the future as well. The hardware specifications are much weaker compared to the top models. But small improvements or not: The graphics cards hardly differ in practice, which is also confirmed by our benchmarks. According to the tool GPU-Z you also get higher values for the pixel fill rate, the texture fill rate and the number of TMUs, although this might also be a bug in the application. Smaller differences are revealed when you look at the core clock: Instead of 1,029-1,097 MHz, Nvidia increases the clock of the GTX 960M to 1,097-1,202 MHz, which results in an advantage of 7-10%. Both GPUs are based on the GM107 chip and can use 640 Unified Shaders as well as 2,048-4,096 MB GDDR5 video memory, which is attached via 128-bit memory interface. Look at the most important specs and you can see that the GTX 960M and the Maxwell version of the GTX 860M are very similar. There was a Kepler version of the GTX 860M that had an MXM interface as well as 80% more shader units, but it was rarely used due to the lower performance. The technical specifications of the GTX 960M are not very spectacular because the predecessor was already based on the Maxwell architecture.
0 kommentar(er)
