GeForce GTX 970M SLI vs GeForce GTX 950

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 970M SLI is positioned at rank #132 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower 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 970M SLI

#122

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

296%

#124

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

268%

#125

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

268%

#129

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

243%

#130

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

242%

#132

GeForce GTX 970M SLI

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#139

Iris Xe MAX Graphics

MSRP: $55|Avg: $40

98%

#145

Radeon RX 580 (móvel)

MSRP: $229|Avg: $65

95%

#147

GeForce GT 630M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $35

95%

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 GeForce GTX 970M SLI is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 950.

Insight	GeForce GTX 970M SLI	GeForce GTX 950
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+2.7%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.7%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 970M SLI 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 970M SLI Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 950 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 970M SLI and GeForce GTX 950

GeForce GTX 970M SLI

The GeForce GTX 970M SLI is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 7 2014. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 924 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 162W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,500 points.

GeForce GTX 950

The GeForce GTX 950 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 20 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1024 MHz to 1188 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 90W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,357 points. Launch price was $159.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 970M SLI scores 5,500 and the GeForce GTX 950 reaches 5,357 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 970M SLI is built on Maxwell while the GeForce GTX 950 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,560 (GeForce GTX 970M SLI) vs 768 (GeForce GTX 950). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1188 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970M SLI	GeForce GTX 950
G3D Mark Score	5,500+3%	5,357
Architecture	Maxwell	Maxwell 2.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	2560+233%	768
Boost Clock	1038 MHz	1188 MHz+14%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 970M SLI	GeForce GTX 950
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 970M SLI comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 950 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 970M SLI offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 120 GB/s x2 (GeForce GTX 970M SLI) vs 106 GB/s (GeForce GTX 950) — a 1034% advantage for the GeForce GTX 970M SLI. Bus width: 192-bit x2 vs 128-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970M SLI	GeForce GTX 950
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	120 GB/s x2+13%	106 GB/s
Bus Width	192-bit x2+50%	128-bit

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (GeForce GTX 970M SLI) vs 12_1 (GeForce GTX 950). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970M SLI	GeForce GTX 950
DirectX	12 Ultimate	12_1
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (GeForce GTX 970M SLI) vs NVENC 2nd Gen (GeForce GTX 950). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP6) vs NVDEC 2nd Gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 970M SLI) vs H.264,H.265 (GeForce GTX 950).

Feature	GeForce GTX 970M SLI	GeForce GTX 950
Encoder	NVENC	NVENC 2nd Gen
Decoder	PureVideo HD (VP6)	NVDEC 2nd Gen
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC	H.264,H.265

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 970M SLI draws 162W versus the GeForce GTX 950's 90W — a 57.1% difference. The GeForce GTX 950 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 970M SLI) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 950). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 202mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.