OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£750VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):75 W

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

4.5/10

Overall score

Score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

3.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 99% of graphics cards
5.1

Value for money

Value for money
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

4.5

Overall score

30%

6.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

1.7

Memory

12%

8.8

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 98%
3.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

3.6

Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 98%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £750
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop

Based on 1 · 4

Reviewers are split on gaming performance, with some finding it capable and others finding it too weak.
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop

Based on 198 owners sharing their experience in online comments

73%positive10%mixed17%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance and overclocking, while newer games expose its limited speed and VRAM.

What owners dislike

  • Newer demanding games like Cyberpunk 2077 and Witcher 3 often drop to around 30 fps unless settings are lowered or resolution reduced.22
  • The 2GB version runs out of video memory in newer games, causing stutter, crashes, or forced low textures; owners wished they had bought 4GB.6
  • Owners found it only a modest step up from older cards like the 660 Ti or 750 Ti, and it trailed the GTX 970 in speed.4
  • Some owners reported stutters, frame drops, and crashes after overclocking, though others said it ran stable with moderate overclocks.4
  • Owners reported temperatures reaching around 70–80°C under load in demanding games, with some cards running hotter than others in SLI.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

1.7

Memory

12%

8.8

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

3.6
Reviews score
3.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

4.5

Overall score

30%

6.6

Price

5.1
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,455 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,455 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 96.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
3,373 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 3,373 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 95.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1,339 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1,339 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 96.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.5 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.5 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 95.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
80.19 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 80.19 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 96.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
5,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 5,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
?
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
17.28 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 17.28 Gbps, which is slower than on 57.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
75 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 75 W, which is lower than that of 90.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
75 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 75 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
75 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 75 W, which is lower than that of 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 49.7% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (148 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    148 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 49.7% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (148 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    148 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 53.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,176 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,176 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 50.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.6 vs 7.2
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 35 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (5 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    5 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 144 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (40 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    40 vs 184
  • 50.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.6 vs 7.2
  • 53.8% lower sentiment score
    3.6 vs 7.8
  • 44% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.15 vs 7.4).
    5.15 vs 7.41
  • 44.2% more expensive
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop is more expensive than the average graphics card (£750 vs £520).
    £750 vs £520
  • 53.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,176 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,176 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 35 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (5 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    5 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 144 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (40 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    40 vs 184
  • 42.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,097 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,097 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 87.6% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (47 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    47.04 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 88.3% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (18.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    18.82 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 48 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (16 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    16 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 93.4% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 8 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2015 vs 2023).
    March 2015
    2015 vs 2023
  • 85.1% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (3,373 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    3,373 points vs 22,638 points
  • 90.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,455 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,455 points vs 14,779 points
  • 88.9% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1,339 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,339 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 94.9% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (1.5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    1.5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 89.6% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.05 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,712 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (640 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    640 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 82.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (80.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    80.19 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 73.7% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    5,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 28.4% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,253 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,253 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 91.8% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (1,870 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    1,870 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.1a).
    1.4 vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 8 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (45 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    45 °C vs 37 °C
  • 7 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (74 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    74 °C vs 67 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

4.0
Josh Fox Tech
≈ estimated
26/04/2024
Retro laptop test · older and modern game benchmarks
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop handles older games well, but modern titles run poorly, so it is hard to recommend.
9.0
VerTechHD
≈ estimated
26/09/2017
Gaming benchmark · five games at 1080p
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop is a capable mid-range GPU, running almost every game at medium settings or higher.
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
computerhoy.20minutos.es
≈ estimated
20/07/2016
Laptop review · Mid-range gaming
Verdict
The Lenovo Y700 is a mid-range gaming laptop with a 4GB GTX 960M and easy-to-upgrade internals, but its glossy screen and extra weight hold it back.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop

  • Reliable for older (pre-2015) games and remastered titles at 1080p high settings
  • Excellent for E-sports and less demanding titles like CS:GO, Overwatch, and League of Legends
  • Affordable entry point for budget gaming laptops compared to higher-end 900M series
  • Noticeable performance upgrade over integrated graphics of its era
  • Supports Battery Boost and NVIDIA Optimus for improved battery life in laptops
  • The 4GB VRAM variant helps handle larger textures better than the 2GB version

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop

  • Struggles with modern AAA titles, often requiring 720p resolution and low settings for playability
  • Limited feature support; only supports DirectX 12 feature level 11_0, which causes issues with newer games
  • Outperformed by newer budget alternatives like the GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti
  • Prone to thermal issues and potential performance throttling in smaller laptop chassis
  • Limited performance gains (roughly 8-10%) over its predecessor, the GTX 860M
  • No support for modern technologies like DLSS or HDMI 2.0

Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is a dedicated mobile graphics card based on the 28nm Maxwell architecture (GM107 chip), featuring 640 CUDA cores, a 128-bit memory interface, and up to 4GB of GDDR5 VRAM. Launched as an upper-mid-range laptop GPU, it offers a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz, delivering performance roughly equivalent to a desktop GTX 750 Ti. Its primary pros include its ability to handle 1080p gaming at medium-to-high settings for titles from its era, support for DirectX 12 (feature level 11_0), and the inclusion of the PureVideo HD (VP6) engine for efficient 4K video decoding. However, main cons include its age, lack of support for modern technologies like ray tracing or DLSS, a high power draw of up to 75W for its class, and difficulty running modern triple-A games at acceptable frame rates without significant resolution or detail reductions.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Laptop and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found