GeForce GTX 960M vs 760

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

GTX 760
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 170 Watt
12.41
+41.2%

760 outperforms 960M by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking370459
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.411.49
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameGK104N16P-GX
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date25 June 2013 (11 years ago)12 March 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 no data
Current price$136 (0.5x MSRP)$799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 760 has 196% better value for money than GTX 960M.

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 cores1152640
CUDA cores1152640
Core clock speed980 MHz1096 MHz
Boost clock speed1033 MHz1202 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)170 Watt75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature97 °Cno data
Texture fill rate94.1 billion/sec47.04
Floating-point performance2,378 gflops1,505 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 760 and GeForce GTX 960M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length9.5" (24.1 cm)no data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Minimum recommended system power500 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectorsTwo 6-pinno data
SLI options++

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed3000 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s80 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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPortNo outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
VGA аnalog display supportno data+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno data+
HDMI++
HDCP+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

Blu Ray 3D+no data
3D Gaming+no data
3D Vision+no data
PhysX+no data
GameStreamno data+
GeForce ShadowPlayno data+
GPU Boostno data2.0
GameWorksno data+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoderno data+
Optimusno data+
3D Vision Live+no data
BatteryBoostno data+
Anselno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.34.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
CUDA++

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.

GTX 760 12.41
+41.2%
GTX 960M 8.79

760 outperforms 960M by 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 760 4794
+41.2%
GTX 960M 3395

760 outperforms 960M by 41% in Passmark.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 760 7962
+50.9%
GTX 960M 5278

760 outperforms 960M by 51% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 760 5959
+38%
GTX 960M 4318

760 outperforms 960M by 38% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 760 40150
+33.5%
GTX 960M 30086

760 outperforms 960M by 33% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GTX 760 14207
+31.8%
GTX 960M 10777

760 outperforms 960M by 32% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX 760 13792
+55.4%
GTX 960M 8878

760 outperforms 960M by 55% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 760 10683
GTX 960M 11818
+10.6%

960M outperforms 760 by 11% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 760 75
+33.9%
GTX 960M 56

760 outperforms 960M by 34% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 760 44
+37.5%
GTX 960M 32

760 outperforms 960M by 38% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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:

900p130−140
+36.8%
95
−36.8%
Full HD66
+83.3%
36
−83.3%
1440p18−20
+28.6%
14
−28.6%
4K18−20
+28.6%
14
−28.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
25
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+33.3%
30
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+3.6%
28
−3.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+9.7%
31
−9.7%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+71.4%
35
−71.4%
Hitman 3 24−27
+41.2%
16−18
−41.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+34.2%
35−40
−34.2%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+29%
31
−29%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+40%
24−27
−40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+40.7%
27−30
−40.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+27.3%
30−35
−27.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+31.6%
19
−31.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+73.9%
23
−73.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+20.8%
24
−20.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+47.8%
23
−47.8%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−18.3%
71
+18.3%
Hitman 3 24−27
+41.2%
16−18
−41.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+34.2%
35−40
−34.2%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+60%
25
−60%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+40%
24−27
−40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+40.7%
27−30
−40.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+8.3%
24
−8.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+27.3%
30−35
−27.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+127%
11
−127%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+61.1%
18
−61.1%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+140%
25
−140%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+34.2%
35−40
−34.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+40.7%
27−30
−40.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+85.7%
14
−85.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+27.3%
30−35
−27.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+40%
24−27
−40%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+71.4%
14
−71.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+37.5%
16
−37.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+50%
8
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+33.3%
15
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+27.8%
18
−27.8%
Hitman 3 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+33.3%
15
−33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+100%
10−11
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+33.3%
14−16
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+100%
6
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+28.6%
7
−28.6%
Hitman 3 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10
−10%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+75%
4
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+100%
6
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%

This is how GTX 760 and GTX 960M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 760 is 37% faster in 900p
  • GTX 760 is 83% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 760 is 29% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 760 is 29% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 760 is 140% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 960M is 18% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 760 is ahead in 70 tests (97%)
  • GTX 960M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.41 8.79
Recency 25 June 2013 12 March 2015
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 170 Watt 75 Watt

The GeForce GTX 760 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 960M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 760 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook one.


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 GTX 760
GeForce GTX 760
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GeForce GTX 960M

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.


4 1959 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 760 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 927 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960M 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.