GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 760 vs 470


Real world tests using the latest 3D games

Civilization 5


Synthetic tests to measure overall performance

PassMark, 3DMark Vantage Texture Fill, 3DMark 11 Graphics and 2 more

Compute Performance

General computing tests executed on the GPU

SmallLuxGPU 2.0d4, PassMark Direct Compute and CLBenchmark Raytrace

Noise and Power

How loud and hot does the card run idle and under load

TDP, Idle Noise Level, Load Noise Level, Idle Power Consumption and 1 more

GPUBoss Score

Gaming, Benchmarks, Compute Performance and Noise and Power

Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 

GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 760  based on its gaming, benchmarks and noise and power.

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!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of GeForce GTX 760

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 760

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 980 MHz vs 700 MHz 40% higher clock speed
Significantly better 3DMark vantage graphics score 30,030 vs 15,350 More than 95% better 3DMark vantage graphics score
Better 3DMark vantage texture fill score 82.8 vs 31.5 Around 2.8x better 3DMark vantage texture fill score
Significantly higher effective memory clock speed 6,008 MHz vs 3,348 MHz Around 80% higher effective memory clock speed
Better PassMark score 4,955 vs 3,582 Around 40% better PassMark score
Significantly higher texture rate 94.1 GTexel/s vs 39.2 GTexel/s Around 2.5x higher texture rate
Significantly more energy-efficient idle power consumption 108W vs 135W 20% more energy-efficient idle power consumption
Higher memory bandwidth 192.3 GB/s vs 133.9 GB/s Around 45% higher memory bandwidth
Better 3DMark 11 graphics score 8,730 vs 4,342 More than 2x better 3DMark 11 graphics score
Better floating-point performance 2,258 GFLOPS vs 1,254 GFLOPS More than 80% better floating-point performance
Better 3DMark06 score 24,480 vs 22,622 Around 10% better 3DMark06 score
Slightly more memory 2,048 MB vs 1,280 MB 60% more memory
Significantly higher memory clock speed 1,502 MHz vs 837 MHz Around 80% higher memory clock speed
More energy-efficient load power consumption 336W vs 385W Around 15% more energy-efficient load power consumption
Significantly higher BioShock infinite framerate 68.2 fps vs 32.8 fps More than 2x higher BioShock infinite framerate
Significantly higher battlefield 3 framerate 103.4 fps vs 45.8 fps More than 2.2x higher battlefield 3 framerate
More shading units 1,152 vs 448 704 more shading units
Higher crysis: warhead framerate 49.8 fps vs 27.5 fps More than 80% higher crysis: warhead framerate
Quieter load noise level 50 dB vs 53.1 dB More than 5% quieter load noise level
More texture mapping units 96 vs 56 40 more texture mapping units
Better PassMark direct compute score 2,336 vs 1,319 More than 75% better PassMark direct compute score
Higher civilization 5 framerate 84.5 fps vs 69.9 fps More than 20% higher civilization 5 framerate
Lower TDP 170W vs 215W More than 20% lower TDP
Front view of GeForce GTX 470

Reasons to consider the

Report a correction
Better SmallLuxGPU 2.0d4 score 8,300 vs 228 Around 36.5x better SmallLuxGPU 2.0d4 score
Slightly more render output processors 40 vs 32 8 more render output processors

Benchmarks Real world tests of GeForce GTX 760 vs 470

PassMark Industry standard benchmark for overall graphics card performanceData courtesy Passmark

3DMark Vantage (Texture Fill) Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX performance

3DMark 11 Graphics Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX 11 GPU performance

BioShock Infinite 1920 x 1080 - Ultra preset + DX11 (DDOF)

GeForce GTX 760
68.2 fps
GeForce GTX 470
32.8 fps

SmallLux GPU 2.0d4 Measures compute performance using OpenCL to do 3D rendering

PassMark Direct Compute Measures performance of general-purpose computing using Microsoft DirectCompute

Read more


comments powered by Disqus