NVIDIA GRID K160Q vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GRID K160Q and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M
- 4.1x more texture fill rate: 55.23 GTexel / s vs 13.6 GTexel / s
- 4x more pipelines: 768 vs 192
- 4.1x better floating-point performance: 1,326 gflops vs 326.4 gflops
- Around 73% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 130 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 12% higher memory clock speed: 2000 MHz vs 1782 MHz
- 3.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2004 vs 628
- Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 289 vs 262
- 2.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3188 vs 1237
- 2.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3188 vs 1237
- Around 75% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3275 vs 1871
- Around 75% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3275 vs 1871
- Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3333 vs 2654
- Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3333 vs 2654
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 55.23 GTexel / s vs 13.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 768 vs 192 |
Floating-point performance | 1,326 gflops vs 326.4 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 130 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz vs 1782 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2004 vs 628 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 289 vs 262 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3188 vs 1237 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3188 vs 1237 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3275 vs 1871 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3275 vs 1871 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3333 vs 2654 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3333 vs 2654 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GRID K160Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GRID K160Q | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 628 | 2004 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 262 | 289 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1237 | 3188 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1237 | 3188 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1871 | 3275 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1871 | 3275 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2654 | 3333 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2654 | 3333 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7240 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.832 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 520.747 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.935 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.952 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 43.535 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 759 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GRID K160Q | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
Code name | GK107 | GK106 |
Launch date | 28 June 2013 | 30 May 2013 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $125 | |
Place in performance rating | 1045 | 1046 |
Type | Workstation | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 850 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 326.4 gflops | 1,326 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 192 | 768 |
Texture fill rate | 13.6 GTexel / s | 55.23 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 130 Watt | 75 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,270 million | 2,540 million |
Boost clock speed | 863 MHz | |
CUDA cores | 768 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | ||
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
HDCP content protection | ||
HDMI | ||
LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | |
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | ||
VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 | |
Laptop size | large | |
SLI options | 1 | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 28.51 GB / s | 64.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1782 MHz | 2000 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
Blu-Ray 3D Support | ||
CUDA | ||
Direct Compute | ||
FXAA | ||
GPU Boost | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA | ||
Verde Drivers |