Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce GTS 160M vs Radeon R7 M270
Aggregated performance score
R7 M270
2014
0 MB Not Listed
1.98
+13.1%
GTS 160M
2009
1 GB GDDR3
1.75
Radeon R7 M270 outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 13% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 849 | 882 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | no data | 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 | no data | $230 |
Value for money
no data
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 |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19.80 | 19 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 633.6 gflops | 192 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 288 |
Size and compatibility
Information on Radeon R7 M270 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 | 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 | Not Listed | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 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 | 5.1 | 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.
Radeon R7 M270 outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 13% 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%
Radeon R7 M270 outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 13% 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%
Radeon R7 M270 outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 69% 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
+16.7%
| 12−14
−16.7%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 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 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| 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 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| 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 M270 and GTS 160M compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- R7 M270 is 16.7% faster than GTS 160M
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 M270 is 100% faster than the GTS 160M.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 M270 is ahead in 17 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 24 tests (59%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 1.98 | 1.75 |
| Recency | 7 January 2014 | 2 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
The Radeon R7 M270 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 160M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
