Nvidia GeForce GTX 960M Review

Our review unit is otherwise equipped with 16 GB DDR3 memory (2x 8 GB dual-channel) as well as two storage drives. While the 64-bit edition of Windows 8.1 was installed on a 256 GB SSD (Micron M600), we installed the benchmarks on the 1.75 TB hard drive (Samsung Spinpoint M9T). If you select these components on the Schenker website and add an LTE module, you will get a device for almost 1,800 Euros (~$1897). The base configuration (no OS, 4 GB RAM, 500 GB HDD) of the XMG A505 is available for "just" 1,199 Euros (~$1263). We used the GPU driver ForceWare 345.05.

The technical specifications of the GTX 960M are not very spectacular because the predecessor was already based on the Maxwell architecture. 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. 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. 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.

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%. 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. But small improvements or not: The graphics cards hardly differ in practice, which is also confirmed by our benchmarks.

The hardware specifications are much weaker compared to the top models. 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 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).

All 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). Still, thanks to the higher number of shaders (GM204 chip with 1,024 CUDA cores), the GTX 965M is faster nonetheless.

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). A GeForce GTX 965M is 21% faster in this scenario (17,096 points @Schenker XMG P705).

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.

The differences are similar in the Unigine Heaven 3.0 benchmark, but the Kepler architecture can actually close the gap a bit. 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). 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).

The differences are also huge in gaming benchmarks. 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 GeForce GTX 965M, however, only has an advantage of 15% (GTX 860M: -8% @ Maxwell, -17% @ Kepler).

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. Those titles run slightly better on the Kepler GTX 860M (4 GB video memory). Wolfenstein: The New Order requires at least 3 GB VRAM for the highest settings.

Speaking of the highest settings: As expected, the performance of the GTX 960M is not always sufficient for the maximum details. 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. The performance of the GTX 960M is, however, sufficient for the High-preset and 1600x900 pixels. Less demanding titles like F1 2014, Tomb Raider, FIFA 15, Dota 2, GRID Autosport and The Sims 4 do not require any compromises (>50 fps @Ultra).

The GeForce GTX 960M is an interesting solution for price-conscious users in particular that do not want to spend more than 1,500 Euros (~$1582) for a new notebook. You will be pretty happy with the GTX 960M if you don't mind reducing some settings if necessary and do not have to play every title with activated anti-aliasing.

The performance of the Maxwell chip is not really future-proof. The small memory interface and the 2 GB video memory could be a frequent limiting factor in the next couple of years. You can actually already notice this issue with the GTX 965M. If you plan to get a new notebook every 1-2 years anyway or – as we mentioned earlier – can live with some compromises in respect of the details and resolution, then the GTX 960M is a good choice.

We have to criticize Nvidia for the price. We think that both the GTX 980M as well as the GTX 965M or GTX 960M, respectively, are a bit too expensive. Based on the price-performance ratio we would recommend the GTX 970M for gaming enthusiasts: It is almost 45% faster than the GTX 965M but only 100 Euros (~$105) more expensive (upgrade @P/W/U-series).