GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 560M vs 460M among Laptop GPUs over 35W TDP

Gaming

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more

Graphics

T-Rex, Manhattan, Sky Diver Factor and Fire Strike Factor

Computing

Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more

Performance per Watt

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 31 more

Value

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 31 more

Noise and Power

TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more

7.9

Overall Score

Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 560M 

GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 560M  based on its benchmarks.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of GeForce GTX 560M

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 560M

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 775 MHz vs 675 MHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Better 3DMark06 score 15,327 vs 12,942 Around 20% better 3DMark06 score
Significantly better CLBenchmark raytrace score 46,652 vs 39,165 Around 20% better CLBenchmark raytrace score
Front view of GeForce GTX 460M

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 460M

Report a correction
Much higher dirt3 framerate 129.9 vs 23 Around 5.8x higher dirt3 framerate
Higher texture rate 43.2 GTexel/s vs 24.8 GTexel/s Around 75% higher texture rate
Lower TDP 50W vs 75W Around 35% lower TDP

Benchmarks Real world tests of GeForce GTX 560M vs 460M

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

GeForce GTX 560M
44.12 mHash/s
GeForce GTX 460M
32.96 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

GeForce GTX 560M
13.64 mPixels/s
GeForce GTX 460M
11.12 mPixels/s

Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

GeForce GTX 560M
404.62 frames/s
GeForce GTX 460M
391.55 frames/s

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Comments

comments powered by Disqus