Radeon R6 (Kaveri) vs GeForce GTS 160M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 160M and Radeon R6 (Kaveri), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTS 160M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 60 Watt
1.76

R6 (Kaveri) outperforms GTS 160M by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking926923
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.02no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 1.1 (2014)
GPU code nameG94Kaveri
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 March 2009 (15 years ago)4 June 2014 (10 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 cores64384
Core clock speed600 MHz533 MHz
Boost clock speedno data654 MHz
Number of transistors505 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Wattno data
Texture fill rate19.20no data
Floating-point processing power0.192 TFLOPSno data
Gigaflops288no data
ROPs16no data
TMUs32no data

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth51 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsVGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVIno data
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)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/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
R6 (Kaveri) 1.80
+2.3%

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.

GTS 160M 678
R6 (Kaveri) 691
+1.9%

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
R6 (Kaveri) 4114
+3.8%

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 HD8−9
−12.5%
9
+12.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
World of Tanks 35−40
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GTS 160M and R6 (Kaveri) compete in popular games:

  • R6 (Kaveri) is 13% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R6 (Kaveri) is 13% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R6 (Kaveri) is ahead in 3 tests (6%)
  • there's a draw in 46 tests (94%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.76 1.80
Recency 3 March 2009 4 June 2014
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm

R6 (Kaveri) has a 2.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTS 160M and Radeon R6 (Kaveri).


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
AMD Radeon R6 (Kaveri)
Radeon R6 (Kaveri)

Other comparisons

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
4.1 16 votes

Rate Radeon R6 (Kaveri) 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.