Quadro RTX 8000 vs GeForce GTS 160M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 160M with Quadro RTX 8000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 8000 outperforms GTS 160M by a whopping 2779% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1009 | 81 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.90 |
| Power efficiency | 2.10 | 13.96 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G94 | TU102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 64 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19.20 | 509.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.192 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 288 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 32 | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 576 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 4.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 6 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | 2-way | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−2733%
|
170−180
+2733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−2678%
|
250−260
+2678%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2700%
|
280−290
+2700%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2738%
|
1050−1100
+2738%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−2757%
|
1000−1050
+2757%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−2532%
|
500−550
+2532%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−2733%
|
170−180
+2733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−2678%
|
250−260
+2678%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2700%
|
280−290
+2700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−2775%
|
230−240
+2775%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2738%
|
1050−1100
+2738%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−2532%
|
500−550
+2532%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−2678%
|
250−260
+2678%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2700%
|
280−290
+2700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−2775%
|
230−240
+2775%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2738%
|
1050−1100
+2738%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−2733%
|
170−180
+2733%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−2627%
|
300−310
+2627%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−2713%
|
450−500
+2713%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−2592%
|
350−400
+2592%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2567%
|
400−450
+2567%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−2678%
|
250−260
+2678%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.63 | 46.93 |
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 13 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 260 Watt |
GTS 160M has 333% lower power consumption.
RTX 8000, on the other hand, has a 2779% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 442% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 160M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 160M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro RTX 8000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
