UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) vs GeForce GTS 160M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 160M and UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTS 160M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 60 Watt
1.76

UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) outperforms GTS 160M by an impressive 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking918745
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.038.70
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameG94Ice Lake G1 Gen. 11
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 March 2009 (15 years ago)28 May 2019 (5 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 cores6432
Core clock speed600 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1100 MHz
Number of transistors505 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt12-25 Watt
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 sizelargeno data
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 typeGDDR3DDR4
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
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
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12_1
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
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) 3.14
+78.4%

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
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) 8750
+121%

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 HD7−8
−85.7%
13
+85.7%
4K5−6
−80%
9
+80%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−14.3%
8
+14.3%
Battlefield 5 0−1 5−6
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−100%
10
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−43.8%
21−24
+43.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−100%
6
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−44.4%
12−14
+44.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−14.7%
35−40
+14.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Battlefield 5 0−1 5−6
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
Hitman 3 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−43.8%
21−24
+43.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−22.2%
11
+22.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−14.7%
35−40
+14.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
Hitman 3 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−43.8%
21−24
+43.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−44.4%
13
+44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+140%
5
−140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−14.7%
35−40
+14.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
−100%
18−20
+100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GTS 160M and UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is 86% faster in 1080p
  • UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is 80% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 160M is 140% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTS 160M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is ahead in 46 tests (79%)
  • there's a draw in 11 tests (19%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.76 3.14
Recency 3 March 2009 28 May 2019
Chip lithography 65 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 12 Watt

UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) has a 78.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 160M 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
Intel UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU)
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU)

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
3.7 364 votes

Rate UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) 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.