GeForce GTS 160M vs Radeon RX 470
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 470 with GeForce GTS 160M, including specs and performance data.
RX 470 outperforms GTS 160M by a whopping 1095% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 315 | 991 |
| Place by popularity | 58 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.70 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.39 | 2.07 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | G94 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 926 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1206 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 154.4 | 19.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.94 TFLOPS | 0.192 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 288 |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 64 KB |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1650 MHz | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 211.2 GB/s | 51 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 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.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 69
+1280%
| 5−6
−1280%
|
| 1440p | 38
+1167%
| 3−4
−1167%
|
| 4K | 37
+1133%
| 3−4
−1133%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.59 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.71 | no data |
| 4K | 4.84 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+11100%
|
1−2
−11100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+2633%
|
3−4
−2633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+11100%
|
1−2
−11100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+1480%
|
5−6
−1480%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+1500%
|
4−5
−1500%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+1617%
|
6−7
−1617%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+789%
|
9−10
−789%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+1967%
|
3−4
−1967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
+610%
|
10−11
−610%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+308%
|
35−40
−308%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+2633%
|
3−4
−2633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+11100%
|
1−2
−11100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+571%
|
35−40
−571%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+484%
|
18−20
−484%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+1480%
|
5−6
−1480%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+1500%
|
4−5
−1500%
|
| Fortnite | 88
+1367%
|
6−7
−1367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+789%
|
9−10
−789%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+1967%
|
3−4
−1967%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 73
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70
+900%
|
7−8
−900%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+308%
|
35−40
−308%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+2633%
|
3−4
−2633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+484%
|
18−20
−484%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+1480%
|
5−6
−1480%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+1425%
|
4−5
−1425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+789%
|
9−10
−789%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+308%
|
35−40
−308%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 59
+883%
|
6−7
−883%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+700%
|
5−6
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+1200%
|
10−12
−1200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+975%
|
16−18
−975%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+1922%
|
9−10
−1922%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1300%
|
4−5
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1125%
|
4−5
−1125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+136%
|
14−16
−136%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1313%
|
8−9
−1313%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 86
+2767%
|
3−4
−2767%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 17
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
This is how RX 470 and GTS 160M compete in popular games:
- RX 470 is 1280% faster in 1080p
- RX 470 is 1167% faster in 1440p
- RX 470 is 1133% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 470 is 11100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 470 surpassed GTS 160M in all 52 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.36 | 1.62 |
| Recency | 4 August 2016 | 3 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 60 Watt |
RX 470 has a 1095.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
GTS 160M, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 470 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 160M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 470 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTS 160M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
