UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) vs GeForce GTS 160M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 160M and UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) outperforms GTS 160M by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 885 | 731 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | no data |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GS1 | Ice Lake G1 Gen. 11 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 28 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Current price | $230 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 64 | 32 |
| CUDA cores | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 12-25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19 billion/sec | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 192 gflops | no data |
| Gigaflops | 288 | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTS 160M and UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| SLI options | 2-way | no data |
| 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 | DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 51 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 | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| 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 |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | no data |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 121% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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 | 8−9
−75%
| 14
+75%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−80%
| 9
+80%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 4−5 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 4−5 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14 | no data |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | no data |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 7−8 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | no data |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3 | no data |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | no data |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Metro Exodus | 12
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 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%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
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 75% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is 80% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.76 | 3.04 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 28 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 12 Watt |
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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
