GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition vs GTX 960M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 960M and GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 960M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.77
+452%

GTX 960M outperforms GT 650M Mac Edition by a whopping 452% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking492965
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.052.43
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM107GK107
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date13 March 2015 (9 years ago)12 July 2012 (12 years ago)

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 cores640384
Core clock speed1096 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speed1176 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate47.0428.80
Floating-point processing power1.505 TFLOPS0.6912 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4032

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz1254 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s80.26 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-
Ansel+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
CUDA+3.0

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:

900p95
+494%
16−18
−494%
Full HD35
+483%
6−7
−483%
1440p15
+650%
2−3
−650%
4K14
+600%
2−3
−600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Elden Ring 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 23
+475%
4−5
−475%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Metro Exodus 27
+575%
4−5
−575%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
Valorant 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 25
+525%
4−5
−525%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Dota 2 21
+600%
3−4
−600%
Elden Ring 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+517%
6−7
−517%
Fortnite 36
+500%
6−7
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Grand Theft Auto V 31
+520%
5−6
−520%
Metro Exodus 17
+467%
3−4
−467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 99
+519%
16−18
−519%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+460%
5−6
−460%
Valorant 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%
World of Tanks 130−140
+519%
21−24
−519%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20
+567%
3−4
−567%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Dota 2 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+517%
6−7
−517%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20
+567%
3−4
−567%
Valorant 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Elden Ring 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+514%
7−8
−514%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
World of Tanks 60−65
+530%
10−11
−530%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14
+600%
2−3
−600%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Metro Exodus 15
+650%
2−3
−650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Valorant 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 20
+567%
3−4
−567%
Elden Ring 5−6 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 20
+567%
3−4
−567%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24
+500%
4−5
−500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+567%
3−4
−567%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Fortnite 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Valorant 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

This is how GTX 960M and GT 650M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • GTX 960M is 494% faster in 900p
  • GTX 960M is 483% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 960M is 650% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 960M is 600% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.77 1.59
Recency 13 March 2015 12 July 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 45 Watt

GTX 960M has a 451.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GT 650M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 960M
GeForce GTX 960M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition
GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition

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.


3.7 1093 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 19 votes

Rate GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.