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: 3374 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 | 3374 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 26% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 308 vs 245
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 245 |
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 | 3374 | 679 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 245 | 308 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10982 | |
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 | 772 | 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 |