GeForce GTS 160M vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3850 and GeForce GTS 160M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTS 160M outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3850 by a whopping 155% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1180 | 929 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.36 | 2.02 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | M88 | G94 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (15 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 cores | 320 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.280 | 19.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3712 TFLOPS | 0.192 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 288 |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 32 |
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 | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 51 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 Connectors | No outputs | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
−84.2%
|
35−40
+84.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| World of Tanks | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTS 160M is 700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 160M is ahead in 29 tests (62%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (38%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.66 | 1.68 |
| Recency | 4 June 2008 | 3 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 60 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 3850 has a 18.2% more advanced lithography process, and 71.4% lower power consumption.
GTS 160M, on the other hand, has a 154.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTS 160M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3850 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
