Radeon 760M vs Quadro NVS 160M

Place in the ranking	1289	354
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.00	68.11
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	G98	Phoenix
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	15 August 2008 (16 years ago)	8 January 2024 (less than a 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
Width	no data	IGP
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

Motherboard 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 0.35

Radeon 760M 14.91
+4160%

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 5745
+4156%

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	32
1440p	-0−1	19

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−1400%

30
+1400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1450%	30−35 +1450%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1100%	24 +1100%
Hitman 3	4−5 −625%	27−30 +625%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −863%	75−80 +863%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −182%	75−80 +182%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1450%	30−35 +1450%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −800%	18 +800%
Hitman 3	4−5 −625%	27−30 +625%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −863%	75−80 +863%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −1000%	44 +1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −300%	35−40 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −182%	75−80 +182%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1450%	30−35 +1450%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1100%	24−27 +1100%
Hitman 3	4−5 −625%	27−30 +625%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −863%	75−80 +863%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −825%	37 +825%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −156%	23 +156%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −182%	75−80 +182%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	8−9
Hitman 3	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −1450%	30−35 +1450%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−1150%

24−27
+1150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	7−8

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−600%

14−16
+600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

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

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 760M is 1450% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Radeon 760M is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.35	14.91
Recency	15 August 2008	8 January 2024
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 4160% 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 desktop one.

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