GeForce GTX 965M vs GRID M60-8Q

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GeForce GTX 965M is positioned at rank #39 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Great cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 965M

#16

Radeon RX 7600S

MSRP: $269|Avg: $250

90%

#29

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

169%

#31

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

153%

#32

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

153%

#36

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

139%

#37

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

138%

#39

GeForce GTX 965M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#46

Radeon RX 5500M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

93%

#48

GeForce GTX 980 (móvel)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

92%

#49

GeForce 610M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $20

91%

#50

GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $75

90%

#53

GeForce GTX 980M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $80

88%

#54

GeForce GTX 770M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40

87%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GRID M60-8Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GTX 965M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	GeForce GTX 965M	GRID M60-8Q
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%)	✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GRID M60-8Q remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce GTX 965M Benchmark Check

GRID M60-8Q Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 965M and GRID M60-8Q

GeForce GTX 965M

The GeForce GTX 965M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in 2016. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 944 MHz to 1150 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,860 points.

GRID M60-8Q

The GRID M60-8Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,884 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 965M scores 3,860 and the GRID M60-8Q reaches 3,884 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 965M is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GRID M60-8Q uses Maxwell 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 965M) vs 2,048 (GRID M60-8Q). Raw compute: 2.355 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 965M) vs 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID M60-8Q). Boost clocks: 1150 MHz vs 1178 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 965M	GRID M60-8Q
G3D Mark Score	3,860	3,884
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0	Maxwell 2.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1024	2048+100%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.355 TFLOPS	4.825 TFLOPS+105%
Boost Clock	1150 MHz	1178 MHz+2%
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	64	128+100%
L1 Cache	384 KB	768 KB+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 965M	GRID M60-8Q
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 965M comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GRID M60-8Q has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 965M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 965M) vs 2 MB (GRID M60-8Q) — the GRID M60-8Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 965M	GRID M60-8Q
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 965M draws 50W versus the GRID M60-8Q's 225W — a 127.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 965M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 965M) vs 350W (GRID M60-8Q). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.