Radeon E6760 vs GeForce GTX 980M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980M SLI with Radeon E6760, including specs and performance data.
980M SLI outperforms E6760 by a whopping 1125% 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 | 255 | 930 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.13 |
| Power efficiency | 9.58 | 3.47 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | no data | Turks |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (11 years ago) | 2 May 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $239.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 3072 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 1038 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1127 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2x 5200 Million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 14.40 |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 |
| Interface | no data | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 3200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 51.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.0 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 135
+1250%
| 10−12
−1250%
|
| Full HD | 110
+1275%
| 8−9
−1275%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 30.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+1340%
|
10−11
−1340%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 60−65
+1400%
|
4−5
−1400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+1138%
|
8−9
−1138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+1340%
|
10−11
−1340%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+1267%
|
6−7
−1267%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+1130%
|
10−11
−1130%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−105
+1150%
|
8−9
−1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+1233%
|
6−7
−1233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
+1150%
|
8−9
−1150%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+1129%
|
14−16
−1129%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+1138%
|
8−9
−1138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+1340%
|
10−11
−1340%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+1152%
|
21−24
−1152%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+1150%
|
10−11
−1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+1267%
|
6−7
−1267%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+1130%
|
10−11
−1130%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−105
+1150%
|
8−9
−1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+1233%
|
6−7
−1233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 90−95
+1214%
|
7−8
−1214%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+1300%
|
4−5
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
+1150%
|
8−9
−1150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+1183%
|
6−7
−1183%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+1129%
|
14−16
−1129%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+1138%
|
8−9
−1138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+1150%
|
10−11
−1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+1267%
|
6−7
−1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−105
+1150%
|
8−9
−1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
+1150%
|
8−9
−1150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+1183%
|
6−7
−1183%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+1129%
|
14−16
−1129%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 120−130
+1130%
|
10−11
−1130%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+1179%
|
14−16
−1179%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1150%
|
14−16
−1150%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+1206%
|
16−18
−1206%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+1300%
|
5−6
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+1220%
|
5−6
−1220%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 60−65
+1425%
|
4−5
−1425%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+1150%
|
12−14
−1150%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+1267%
|
6−7
−1267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
This is how GTX 980M SLI and Radeon E6760 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980M SLI is 1250% faster in 900p
- GTX 980M SLI is 1275% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.87 | 2.03 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 2 May 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 45 Watt |
GTX 980M SLI has a 1125% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon E6760, on the other hand, has 344% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E6760 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon E6760 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.
