GeForce GTX 860M vs 470

Place in performance ranking	479	484
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	8.13	1.02
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code name	GF100	N15P-GX
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	12 April 2010 (14 years old)	12 March 2014 (10 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)	$349	no data
Current price	$9.98 (0x MSRP)	$875

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 470 has 697% better value for money than GTX 860M.

Technical specs

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	448	640
CUDA cores	448	1152 or 640
Core clock speed	607 MHz	797 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	915 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	225 Watt	75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	34.0 billion/sec	43.40
Floating-point performance	1,088.6 gflops	1,389 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 470 and GeForce GTX 860M 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 size	no data	medium sized
Bus support	16x PCI-E 2.0	PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	9.5" (241 mm) (24.1 cm)	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	Two 6-pins	None
SLI options	+	+

Memory

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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1280 MB	4 GB
Standard memory configuration	no data	GDDR5
Memory bus width	320 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1674 MHz (3348 data rate)	Up to 2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	133.9 GB/s	80.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Video outputs and ports

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	Two Dual Link DVIMini HDMI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
eDP 1.2 signal support	no data	Up to 3840x2160
LVDS signal support	no data	Up to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display support	no data	Up to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	no data	Up to 3840x2160
HDMI	+	+
HDCP content protection	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	no data	+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	no data	+

Technologies

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

H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+
Ansel	no data	+

API support

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.2	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
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 470 8.02
+2.7%

GTX 860M 7.81

470 outperforms 860M by 3% based on our aggregated 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 470 3106
+2.6%

GTX 860M 3026

470 outperforms 860M by 3% in Passmark.

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%

GTX 470 16753

GTX 860M 19216
+14.7%

860M outperforms 470 by 15% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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 470 4342

GTX 860M 4902
+12.9%

860M outperforms 470 by 13% 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 470 2758

GTX 860M 3904
+41.6%

860M outperforms 470 by 42% 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 470 25757

GTX 860M 27961
+8.6%

860M outperforms 470 by 9% 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 470 11010
+9%

GTX 860M 10102

470 outperforms 860M by 9% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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 470 44
+46.7%

GTX 860M 30

470 outperforms 860M by 47% 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:

900p	52 −75%	91 +75%
Full HD	64 +73%	37 −73%
1200p	53 +6%	50−55 −6%
4K	12−14 −8.3%	13 +8.3%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14
+8.3%

12−14

−8.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +3.8%	24−27 −3.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +5%	20−22 −5%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%
Hitman 3	20−22 +5.3%	18−20 −5.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +5.9%	16−18 −5.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +3.8%	24−27 −3.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +5%	20−22 −5%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%
Hitman 3	20−22 +5.3%	18−20 −5.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +5.9%	16−18 −5.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −25%	20 +25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +3.8%	24−27 −3.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +5%	20−22 −5%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +33.3%	12 −33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Hitman 3	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +7.7%	12−14 −7.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Battlefield 5	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

This is how GTX 470 and GTX 860M compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

GTX 860M is 75% faster than GTX 470

1080p resolution:

GTX 470 is 73% faster than GTX 860M

1200p resolution:

GTX 470 is 6% faster than GTX 860M

4K resolution:

GTX 860M is 8.3% faster than GTX 470

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 GTX 470 is 33.3% faster than the GTX 860M.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 860M is 25% faster than the GTX 470.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 470 is ahead in 27 tests (40%)
GTX 860M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
there's a draw in 40 tests (59%)

Advantages and disadvantages

Performance score	8.02	7.81
Recency	12 April 2010	12 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount	1280 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	225 Watt	75 Watt