Radeon 760M vs Quadro NVS 160M

Place in the ranking	1299	359
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.04	68.13
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	G98	Hawx Point
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	15 August 2008 (16 years ago)	6 December 2023 (1 year 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	8	512
Core clock speed	580 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2599 MHz
Number of transistors	210 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.640	83.17
Floating-point processing power	0.0232 TFLOPS	5.323 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	16
TMUs	8	32
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8

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).

Interface	MXM-I	PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	11.2 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

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.8
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	1.1	-

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.

NVS 160M 0.34

Radeon 760M 14.17
+4068%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

NVS 160M 135

Radeon 760M 5705
+4126%

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	0−1	31
1440p	-0−1	19

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −317%	25 +317%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −900%	30 +900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −333%	26 +333%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −300%	12 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −750%	51 +750%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −800%	35−40 +800%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −200%	18 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −200%	9 +200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −314%	29 +314%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −633%	44 +633%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −1429%	100−110 +1429%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −800%	35−40 +800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
World of Tanks	12−14 −1385%	190−200 +1385%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −200%	18 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −867%	27−30 +867%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −671%	50−55 +671%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −517%	37 +517%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −1429%	100−110 +1429%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

2−3

−5400%

110−120
+5400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −267%	10−12 +267%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −800%	35−40 +800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −400%	20−22 +400%
Valorant	5−6 −640%	35−40 +640%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 −73.3%	24−27 +73.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −73.3%	24−27 +73.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −4300%	40−45 +4300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −73.3%	24−27 +73.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	14−16
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Dota 2	14−16 −73.3%	24−27 +73.3%
Valorant	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Dota 2	23 +0%	23 +0%
Fortnite	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	34 +0%	34 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Dota 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
World of Tanks	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

4K
High Preset

Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Fortnite	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 760M is 5400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Radeon 760M is ahead in 31 test (50%)
there's a draw in 31 test (50%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.34	14.17
Recency	15 August 2008	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	65 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	15 Watt

NVS 160M has 25% lower power consumption.

Radeon 760M, on the other hand, has a 4067.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 160M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon 760M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.