Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 960M
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 960M based on its gaming and benchmarks.
See full details Radeon R5 M335 vs GeForce GTX 960M |
VS
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R5 M335 vs 960M among Laptop GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 6.9 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Nvidia GeForce GTX 960MGPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| GPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs the Nvidia GeForce GTX 960M. | |||||||
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 23,777.5 | vs | 5,921 | More than 4x better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly better PassMark score | 2,043 | vs | 554 | Around 3.8x better PassMark score | |||
| Significantly better 3DMark06 score | 5,277 | vs | 1,784 | Around 3x better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Much higher diablo III framerate | 121.3 fps | vs | 20.4 fps | Around 6x higher diablo III framerate | |||
| Significantly higher effective memory clock speed | 5,012 MHz | vs | 1,800 MHz | More than 2.8x higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Much better manhattan score | 3,713.7 | vs | 826.7 | Around 4.5x better manhattan score | |||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 80.2 GB/s | vs | 14.4 GB/s | More than 5.5x higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 1,176 MHz | vs | 825 MHz | Around 45% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Significantly better ocean surface simulation score | 795.24 frames/s | vs | 120.35 frames/s | More than 6.5x better ocean surface simulation score | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 1,404.2 GFLOPS | vs | 684.8 GFLOPS | More than 2x better floating-point performance | |||
| Much higher thief framerate | 27.8 | vs | 5.2 | More than 5.2x higher thief framerate | |||
| Much higher BioShock infinite framerate | 45.3 fps | vs | 7.8 fps | More than 5.8x higher BioShock infinite framerate | |||
| Higher texture rate | 43.9 GTexel/s | vs | 21.4 GTexel/s | More than 2x higher texture rate | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 17.55 GPixel/s | vs | 8.56 GPixel/s | More than 2x higher pixel rate | |||
| Significantly higher memory clock speed | 1,253 MHz | vs | 900 MHz | Around 40% higher memory clock speed | |||
| More shading units | 640 | vs | 320 | Twice as many shading units | |||
| More texture mapping units | 40 | vs | 20 | Twice as many texture mapping units | |||
| More render output processors | 16 | vs | 8 | Twice as many render output processors | |||
| Wider memory bus | 128 bit | vs | 64 bit | 2x wider memory bus | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R5 M335 vs GeForce GTX 960M
PassMark Industry standard benchmark for overall graphics card performanceData courtesy Passmark
Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench
Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench
Particle simulation Data courtesy CompuBench
T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Thief
Bioshock Infinite
Laptops
Looking for a laptop?
- 9 laptops with the Radeon R5 M335, starting from $678
- 62 laptops with the GeForce GTX 960M, starting from $699
