NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M vs AMD Radeon R7 M265

Place in performance ranking	954	882
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	0.03	0.15
Architecture	GCN (2011−2017)	G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code name	Opal XT / Mars	N10E-GS1
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	7 January 2014 (10 years old)	2 March 2009 (15 years old)
Current price	$585	$230

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTS 160M has 400% better value for money than R7 M265.

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	384	64
CUDA cores	no data	64
Compute units	6	no data
Core clock speed	825 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	825 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,550 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	23.52	19 billion/sec
Floating-point performance	633.6 gflops	192 gflops
Gigaflops	no data	288

Size and compatibility

Information on Radeon R7 M265 and GeForce GTS 160M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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	medium sized	large
Bus support	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options	no data	2-way
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	DDR3	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	Up to 800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	32 GB/s	51 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	No outputs	VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI
HDMI	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Technologies

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

AppAcceleration	-	no data
Enduro	-	no data
FreeSync	1	no data
HD3D	+	no data
PowerTune	+	no data
DualGraphics	1	no data
TrueAudio	-	no data
ZeroCore	+	no data
Switchable graphics	1	no data
Power management	no data	8.0

API support

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

DirectX	DirectX® 11	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.3	4.0
OpenGL	4.4	2.1
OpenCL	Not Listed	1.1
Vulkan	no data	N/A
Mantle	+	no data
CUDA	no data	+

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.

R7 M265 1.41

GTS 160M 1.75
+24.1%

GeForce GTS 160M outperforms Radeon R7 M265 by 24% 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%

R7 M265 545

GTS 160M 678
+24.4%

GeForce GTS 160M outperforms Radeon R7 M265 by 24% 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%

R7 M265 6175
+55.7%

GTS 160M 3965

Radeon R7 M265 outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 56% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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

−14.3%

16−18
+14.3%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	1−2
Battlefield 5	0−1	1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	1−2
Battlefield 5	0−1	1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 +80%	5−6 −80%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	1−2
Battlefield 5	0−1	1−2
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	1−2
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how R7 M265 and GTS 160M compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

GTS 160M is 14.3% faster than R7 M265

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 M265 is 80% faster than the GTS 160M.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTS 160M is 100% faster than the R7 M265.

All in all, in popular games: