Radeon RX 5700 XT vs GeForce GTS 160M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 160M with Radeon RX 5700 XT, including specs and performance data.
5700 XT outperforms GTS 160M by a whopping 2273% 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 | 998 | 133 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 57 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 34.38 |
| Power efficiency | 2.08 | 13.19 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | G94 | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $399 |
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1605 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1905 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19.20 | 304.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.192 TFLOPS | 9.754 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 288 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 32 | 160 |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 4 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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 272 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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51 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 | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| 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 |
| VR Ready | no data | + |
| Multi Monitor | 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 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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 | 5−6
−2400%
| 125
+2400%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−2433%
| 76
+2433%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−4600%
| 47
+4600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.19 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.25 |
| 4K | no data | 8.49 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−34600%
|
347
+34600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2500%
|
78
+2500%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
−14400%
|
145
+14400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−3867%
|
119
+3867%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−30700%
|
308
+30700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2500%
|
78
+2500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−3350%
|
138
+3350%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−3617%
|
223
+3617%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1622%
|
155
+1622%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−5667%
|
173
+5667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1670%
|
177
+1670%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−769%
|
313
+769%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110
+3567%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−17600%
|
177
+17600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−697%
|
270−280
+697%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2400%
|
75
+2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−384%
|
92
+384%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−3150%
|
130
+3150%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−2883%
|
179
+2883%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1611%
|
154
+1611%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−4967%
|
152
+4967%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−7150%
|
145
+7150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−4750%
|
97
+4750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1560%
|
166
+1560%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2100%
|
154
+2100%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−717%
|
294
+717%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−3400%
|
105
+3400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2133%
|
67
+2133%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−442%
|
103
+442%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2675%
|
111
+2675%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1544%
|
148
+1544%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1290%
|
139
+1290%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1229%
|
93
+1229%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−342%
|
159
+342%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−2283%
|
143
+2283%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−2000%
|
105
+2000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−2382%
|
270−280
+2382%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−994%
|
170−180
+994%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−3078%
|
286
+3078%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40
+3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4750%
|
97
+4750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2875%
|
119
+2875%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−2367%
|
70−75
+2367%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−3000%
|
93
+3000%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−464%
|
79
+464%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−2925%
|
242
+2925%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−3000%
|
93
+3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2550%
|
53
+2550%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1400%
|
45
+1400%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
This is how GTS 160M and RX 5700 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 5700 XT is 2400% faster in 1080p
- RX 5700 XT is 2433% faster in 1440p
- RX 5700 XT is 4600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 5700 XT is 34600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 5700 XT performs better in 49 tests (82%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (18%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.64 | 38.91 |
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 7 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTS 160M has 275% lower power consumption.
RX 5700 XT, on the other hand, has a 2273% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 829% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 5700 XT 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 Radeon RX 5700 XT 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.
