Radeon 760M vs GeForce 8700M GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8700M GT and Radeon 760M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
760M outperforms 8700M GT by a whopping 4454% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1322 | 366 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.76 | 67.14 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | G84 | Hawx Point |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2007 (17 years ago) | 6 December 2023 (1 year ago) |
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 | 32 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2599 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 83.17 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | 5.323 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 8 |
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 |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 0−1 | 30 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 18 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30
+2900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−1350%
|
29
+1350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1833%
|
55−60
+1833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−346%
|
110−120
+346%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1354%
|
180−190
+1354%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−790%
|
85−90
+790%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1833%
|
55−60
+1833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−800%
|
36
+800%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−346%
|
110−120
+346%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2800%
|
27−30
+2800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−790%
|
85−90
+790%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1833%
|
55−60
+1833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−475%
|
23
+475%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−346%
|
110−120
+346%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−4167%
|
120−130
+4167%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3300%
|
30−35
+3300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 30−33 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−73.3%
|
24−27
+73.3%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−3700%
|
75−80
+3700%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 760M is 4167% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 760M is ahead in 28 tests (46%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (54%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.28 | 12.75 |
| Recency | 1 June 2007 | 6 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 760M has a 4453.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 1900% more advanced lithography process, and 93.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8700M GT in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
