NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M 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, 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), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- 2.5x more texture fill rate: 47.04 GTexel / s vs 19 billion / sec
- 10x more pipelines: 640 vs 64
- 7.8x better floating-point performance: 1,505 gflops vs 192 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- 5x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3383 vs 679
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3221
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3221
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 vs 3 March 2009 |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 GTexel / s vs 19 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 640 vs 64 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,505 gflops vs 192 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3383 vs 679 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3221 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3221 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M
- Around 37% higher core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 1096 MHz
- Around 25% lower typical power consumption: 60 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 25% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 308 vs 246
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 1096 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 60 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 308 vs 246 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3383 | 679 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 246 | 308 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10898 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.325 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3221 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3221 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1231 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla |
| Code name | GM107 | G94 |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 | 3 March 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 773 | 775 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1176 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 640 | 64 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,505 gflops | 192 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 64 |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 GTexel / s | 19 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 505 million |
| Gigaflops | 288 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | 1 | |
| HDMI | ||
| VGA аnalog display support | 1 | |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB / s | 51 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
| HybridPower | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
| PureVideo HD | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 3600M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTS 160M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
AMDRadeon E8950
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
AMDRadeon RX 460 (Laptop)
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX330
