GeForce GTX 965M vs Radeon R9 295X2

Intro

Compare all that to the Radeon R9 295X2, which has a GPU core clock speed of 1018 MHz, and 4096 MB of GDDR5 RAM set to run at 1250 MHz through a 512-bit bus. It also features 2816 Stream Processors, 176 Texture Address Units, and 64 ROPs.

Display Graphs

Hide Graphs

Benchmarks

These are real-world performance benchmarks that were submitted by Hardware Compare users. The scores seen here are the average of all benchmarks submitted for each respective test and hardware.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics Score

Radeon R9 295X2		21205 points
GeForce GTX 965M		5650 points
	Difference: 15555 (275%)

Power Usage and Theoretical Benchmarks

Power Consumption (Max TDP)

GeForce GTX 965M		60 Watts
Radeon R9 295X2		500 Watts
	Difference: 440 Watts (733%)

Memory Bandwidth

As far as performance goes, the Radeon R9 295X2 should in theory be quite a bit superior to the GeForce GTX 965M overall. (explain)

Radeon R9 295X2		640000 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 965M		64000 MB/sec
	Difference: 576000 (900%)

Texel Rate

The Radeon R9 295X2 is quite a bit (more or less 493%) more effective at anisotropic filtering than the GeForce GTX 965M. (explain)

Radeon R9 295X2		358336 Mtexels/sec
GeForce GTX 965M		60416 Mtexels/sec
	Difference: 297920 (493%)

Pixel Rate

The Radeon R9 295X2 should be a lot (more or less 331%) faster with regards to full screen anti-aliasing than the GeForce GTX 965M, and should be able to handle higher screen resolutions without losing too much performance. (explain)

Radeon R9 295X2		130304 Mpixels/sec
GeForce GTX 965M		30208 Mpixels/sec
	Difference: 100096 (331%)

Please note that the above 'benchmarks' are all just theoretical - the results were calculated based on the card's specifications, and real-world performance may (and probably will) vary at least a bit.

One or more cards in this comparison are multi-core. This means that their bandwidth, texel and pixel rates are theoretically doubled - this does not mean the card will actually perform twice as fast, but only that it should in theory be able to. Actual game benchmarks will give a more accurate idea of what it's capable of.

Price Comparison

Specifications

Memory Bandwidth: Memory bandwidth is the max amount of information (measured in MB per second) that can be transferred across the external memory interface in one second. It is worked out by multiplying the interface width by its memory clock speed. If the card has DDR RAM, the result should be multiplied by 2 again. If it uses DDR5, multiply by ANOTHER 2x. The higher the memory bandwidth, the faster the card will be in general. It especially helps with AA, High Dynamic Range and higher screen resolutions.

Texel Rate: Texel rate is the maximum texture map elements (texels) that are processed in one second. This figure is worked out by multiplying the total number of texture units by the core speed of the chip. The better this number, the better the card will be at texture filtering (anisotropic filtering - AF). It is measured in millions of texels in one second.

Pixel Rate: Pixel rate is the most pixels the graphics card could possibly write to its local memory in one second - measured in millions of pixels per second. Pixel rate is calculated by multiplying the number of ROPs by the the core clock speed. ROPs (Raster Operations Pipelines - aka Render Output Units) are responsible for drawing the pixels (image) on the screen. The actual pixel rate is also dependant on quite a few other factors, most notably the memory bandwidth of the card - the lower the memory bandwidth is, the lower the ability to get to the max fill rate.