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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

GeForce GTX 960M

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 75W instead of 220W, a 145W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,375 vs 22,172).
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌No DLSS support; it relies on Upscaling support instead.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 44.4 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $499 MSRP).

GeForce RTX 3070

2020

Why buy it

✅+556.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 44.4 vs 0 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅Access to DLSS 2 Super Resolution (2020).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
✅More future proof: Ampere (2020−2025) on 8nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌193.3% higher power demand at 220W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 960M

2015

GeForce RTX 3070

2020

Why buy it

✅Draws 75W instead of 220W, a 145W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+556.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 44.4 vs 0 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅Access to DLSS 2 Super Resolution (2020).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
✅More future proof: Ampere (2020−2025) on 8nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,375 vs 22,172).
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌No DLSS support; it relies on Upscaling support instead.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 44.4 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $499 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌193.3% higher power demand at 220W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce RTX 3070 better than GeForce GTX 960M?

Yes. GeForce RTX 3070 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 22,172 vs 3,375 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce RTX 3070 is a 2020 card with DLSS Super Resolution, while GeForce GTX 960M is a 2015 model from an older generation with no meaningful modern upscaling stack. So this is not really a tight same-tier comparison. It is more a modern card against an older, weaker alternative.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce RTX 3070 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2020 generation instead of 2015, 556.9% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 8 GB instead of 4 GB, and better upscaling support with DLSS 2 Super Resolution (2020) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack. That leaves it with more room for heavier textures, tougher ray tracing loads, and higher-end 1440p or 4K gaming over the next few years.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce RTX 3070 is the smarter buy today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. GeForce RTX 3070 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $499 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting 556.9% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%. That is why the better overall card still comes out as the smarter buy today, not just the faster one.

Is GeForce GTX 960M still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

Yes. GeForce GTX 960M is still a strong modern gaming GPU: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It remains a good buy when you can get it meaningfully cheaper than the alternative around an unclear MSRP, even if GeForce RTX 3070 is still the cleaner recommendation on overall value today.

Games Benchmarks

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 9800X3D 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 960M Benchmark Check

GeForce RTX 3070 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 960M	GeForce RTX 3070
1080p
low	27 FPS	158 FPS
medium	17 FPS	140 FPS
high	11 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	6 FPS	104 FPS
1440p
low	13 FPS	134 FPS
medium	7 FPS	109 FPS
high	4 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	2 FPS	86 FPS
4K
low	5 FPS	80 FPS
medium	3 FPS	67 FPS
high	2 FPS	52 FPS
ultra	1 FPS	45 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 960M Open GeForce RTX 3070

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 960M	GeForce RTX 3070
1080p
low	79 FPS	470 FPS
medium	49 FPS	405 FPS
high	37 FPS	327 FPS
ultra	22 FPS	277 FPS
1440p
low	37 FPS	294 FPS
medium	27 FPS	246 FPS
high	17 FPS	213 FPS
ultra	12 FPS	179 FPS
4K
low	12 FPS	141 FPS
medium	10 FPS	120 FPS
high	8 FPS	105 FPS
ultra	5 FPS	83 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 960M Open GeForce RTX 3070

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 960M	GeForce RTX 3070
1080p
low	152 FPS	885 FPS
medium	122 FPS	712 FPS
high	101 FPS	619 FPS
ultra	76 FPS	499 FPS
1440p
low	114 FPS	692 FPS
medium	91 FPS	557 FPS
high	76 FPS	473 FPS
ultra	57 FPS	374 FPS
4K
low	76 FPS	479 FPS
medium	61 FPS	388 FPS
high	51 FPS	330 FPS
ultra	38 FPS	249 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 960M Open GeForce RTX 3070

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 960M	GeForce RTX 3070
1080p
low	152 FPS	600 FPS
medium	121 FPS	527 FPS
high	101 FPS	433 FPS
ultra	76 FPS	385 FPS
1440p
low	111 FPS	489 FPS
medium	91 FPS	433 FPS
high	76 FPS	339 FPS
ultra	57 FPS	297 FPS
4K
low	63 FPS	292 FPS
medium	49 FPS	270 FPS
high	38 FPS	238 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	200 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 960M Open GeForce RTX 3070

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 960M and GeForce RTX 3070

GeForce GTX 960M

The GeForce GTX 960M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1096 MHz to 1176 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,375 points.

GeForce RTX 3070

The GeForce RTX 3070 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 1 2020. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 1500 MHz to 1725 MHz. It has 5888 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 220W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 22,172 points. Launch price was $499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 960M scores 3,375 versus the GeForce RTX 3070's 22,172 — the GeForce RTX 3070 leads by 556.9%. The GeForce GTX 960M is built on Maxwell while the GeForce RTX 3070 uses Ampere, both on 28 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 640 (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 5,888 (GeForce RTX 3070). Raw compute: 1.505 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 20.31 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 3070). Boost clocks: 1176 MHz vs 1725 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	GeForce RTX 3070
G3D Mark Score	3,375	22,172+557%
Architecture	Maxwell	Ampere
Process Node	28 nm	8 nm
Shading Units	640	5888+820%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.505 TFLOPS	20.31 TFLOPS+1250%
Boost Clock	1176 MHz	1725 MHz+47%
ROPs	16	96+500%
TMUs	40	184+360%
L1 Cache	0.31 MB	5.8 MB+1771%
L2 Cache	2 MB	4 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce RTX 3070 supports the newer DLSS 2 Super Resolution, whereas the GeForce GTX 960M is capped at Upscaling support.

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	GeForce RTX 3070
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	DLSS 2 Super Resolution
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	NVIDIA Reflex

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 960M comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 3070 has 8 GB. The GeForce RTX 3070 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 4 MB (GeForce RTX 3070) — the GeForce RTX 3070 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	GeForce RTX 3070
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	448 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	2 MB	4 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 12 Ultimate (GeForce RTX 3070). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	GeForce RTX 3070
DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate
Vulkan	1.3	1.4+8%
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (4th Gen) (GeForce GTX 960M) vs NVENC 7th gen (GeForce RTX 3070). Decoder: NVDEC (1st Gen) vs NVDEC 5th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264,H.265 (GeForce GTX 960M) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1,VP9 (GeForce RTX 3070).

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	GeForce RTX 3070
Encoder	NVENC (4th Gen)	NVENC 7th gen
Decoder	NVDEC (1st Gen)	NVDEC 5th gen
Codecs	MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264,H.265	H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 960M draws 75W versus the GeForce RTX 3070's 220W — a 98.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 960M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 650W (GeForce RTX 3070). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs 8-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 242mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 82 vs 75°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	GeForce RTX 3070
TDP	75W-66%	220W
Recommended PSU	350W-46%	650W
Power Connector	1x 6-pin	8-pin
Length	0mm	242mm
Height	0mm	112mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	82	75°C-9%
Perf/Watt	45.0	100.8+124%