GeForce RTX 5060 vs 705M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 705M with GeForce RTX 5060, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5060 outperforms 705M by a whopping 4466% 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 | 1131 | 71 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 99.85 |
| Power efficiency | 5.60 | 26.43 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | GB206 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 September 2013 (12 years ago) | 19 May 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 2280 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2497 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 21,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 145 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.800 | 299.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0912 TFLOPS | 19.18 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 8 | 120 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 120 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 30 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 3.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 32 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | DDR3 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 2560x1600 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 2560x1600 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | + | 12.0 |
| 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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 3−4
−5067%
| 155
+5067%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−7200%
| 73
+7200%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−5100%
| 52
+5100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.93 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.10 |
| 4K | no data | 5.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6000%
|
120−130
+6000%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 150−160 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6000%
|
120−130
+6000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−12250%
|
247
+12250%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−10800%
|
210−220
+10800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2657%
|
190−200
+2657%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−25400%
|
255
+25400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1822%
|
170−180
+1822%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−766%
|
270−280
+766%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 150−160 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−933%
|
270−280
+933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6000%
|
120−130
+6000%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−4233%
|
650−700
+4233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−11150%
|
225
+11150%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−10800%
|
210−220
+10800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2657%
|
190−200
+2657%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−22400%
|
225
+22400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−12300%
|
120−130
+12300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1822%
|
170−180
+1822%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4567%
|
280
+4567%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−766%
|
270−280
+766%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 150−160 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6000%
|
120−130
+6000%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−4233%
|
650−700
+4233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−10500%
|
212
+10500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2657%
|
190−200
+2657%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1822%
|
170−180
+1822%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2267%
|
142
+2267%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−766%
|
270−280
+766%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−10800%
|
210−220
+10800%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−3400%
|
140−150
+3400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−5071%
|
350−400
+5071%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1491%
|
170−180
+1491%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−31000%
|
300−350
+31000%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 65−70 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−14300%
|
144
+14300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−5067%
|
150−160
+5067%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−5200%
|
106
+5200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−6850%
|
130−140
+6850%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−786%
|
124
+786%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−5800%
|
290−300
+5800%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4000%
|
80−85
+4000%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3550%
|
70−75
+3550%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 180
+0%
|
180
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 131
+0%
|
131
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
This is how GeForce 705M and RTX 5060 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5060 is 5067% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5060 is 7200% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5060 is 5100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5060 is 31000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5060 performs better in 37 tests (70%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (30%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.09 | 49.77 |
| Recency | 27 September 2013 | 19 May 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 145 Watt |
GeForce 705M has 867% lower power consumption.
RTX 5060, on the other hand, has a 4466% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5060 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 705M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 705M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 5060 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
