ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3870 vs GeForce GTS 160M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 160M and Mobility Radeon HD 3870, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTS 160M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 60 Watt
1.76
+25.7%

GTS 160M outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3870 by a significant 26% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking9251008
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.011.74
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameG94M88
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 March 2009 (15 years ago)4 June 2008 (16 years 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 cores64320
Core clock speed600 MHz660 MHz
Number of transistors505 million666 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate19.2010.56
Floating-point processing power0.192 TFLOPS0.4224 TFLOPS
Gigaflops288no data
ROPs1616
TMUs3216

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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options2-way-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 MHz850 MHz
Memory bandwidth51 GB/s54.4 GB/s
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 ConnectorsVGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVINo outputs
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model4.04.1
OpenGL2.13.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTS 160M 1.76
+25.7%
ATI Mobility HD 3870 1.40

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.

GTS 160M 3965
+14.7%
ATI Mobility HD 3870 3458

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 Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3%
30−35
−3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3%
30−35
−3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3%
30−35
−3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTS 160M is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTS 160M is ahead in 34 tests (71%)
  • there's a draw in 14 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.76 1.40
Recency 3 March 2009 4 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 65 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 55 Watt

GTS 160M has a 25.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

ATI Mobility HD 3870, on the other hand, has a 18.2% more advanced lithography process, and 9.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTS 160M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3870 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M
GeForce GTS 160M
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3870
Mobility Radeon HD 3870

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


1 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 160M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 3 votes

Rate Mobility Radeon HD 3870 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.