Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M based on its gaming.
See full details GeForce GTX 765M vs GT 735M |
Released May, 2013
Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M
- 797 MHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
7.2 Out of 10
by Jarred-Walton (Apr, 2013)As for the Boost clocks, in practice that can increase the GPU core speed 15% or more over the normal value, with most games realizing a 10-15% performance thanks to the increase.
VS
Released April, 2013
Nvidia GeForce GT 735M
- 575 MHz
- 2 GB DDR3
5.8 Out of 10
by Slobodan-Simic (May, 2013)The GTX 765M is also based on the 28nm GK106 Kepler GPU but features 768 CUDA cores and works at 850MHz+ GPU clock and comes with 2GB of GDDR5 memory clocked at 4GHz and paired up with a 128-bit memory interface for 64GB/s of memory bandwidth.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 765M vs 735M
Gaming | |
Real world tests using the latest 3D games | |
| BioShock Infinite, Dead Space 3, Diablo III and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 | |
Benchmarks | |
Synthetic tests to measure overall performance | |
| Passmark, 3DMark 11 Graphics, 3DMark Vantage Graphics and 3DMark06 | |
Compute Performance | |
General computing tests executed on the GPU | |
| Passmark Direct Compute and CLBenchmark Raytrace | |
GPUBoss Score | |
Gaming, Benchmarks and Compute Performance | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Nvidia GeForce GTX 765MGPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 797 MHz | vs | 575 MHz | Around 40% higher clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly better 3DMark06 score | 19,624 | vs | 8,924 | Around 2.2x better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Significantly higher memory bandwidth | 64.1 GB/s | vs | 14.4 GB/s | Around 4.5x higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Better passmark score | 2,000 | vs | 702 | More than 2.8x better passmark score | |||
| Significantly higher effective memory clock speed | 4,008 MHz | vs | 1,800 MHz | Around 2.2x higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 13,390 | vs | 5,058 | Around 2.8x better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Significantly higher texture rate | 51 GTexel/s | vs | 9.2 GTexel/s | More than 5.5x higher texture rate | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 1,224 GFLOPS | vs | 441.6 GFLOPS | More than 2.8x better floating-point performance | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 12.8 GPixel/s | vs | 4.6 GPixel/s | More than 2.8x higher pixel rate | |||
| Better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 4,021 | vs | 1,692.5 | Around 2.5x better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
| Significantly more texture mapping units | 64 | vs | 16 | 48 more texture mapping units | |||
| Significantly higher diablo III framerate | 111.7 fps | vs | 38.2 fps | Around 3x higher diablo III framerate | |||
| More shading units | 768 | vs | 384 | Twice as many shading units | |||
| More render output processors | 16 | vs | 8 | Twice as many render output processors | |||
| Significantly higher dead space 3 framerate | 70.1 fps | vs | 24.9 fps | More than 2.8x higher dead space 3 framerate | |||
| Significantly higher call of duty: modern warfare 3 framerate | 63.6 fps | vs | 24 fps | Around 2.8x higher call of duty: modern warfare 3 framerate | |||
| Wider memory bus | 128 bit | vs | 64 bit | 2x wider memory bus | |||
| Higher BioShock infinite framerate | 23.25 fps | vs | 8.28 fps | More than 2.8x higher BioShock infinite framerate | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,002 MHz | vs | 900 MHz | More than 10% higher memory clock speed | |||
| |||||||
| Lower TDP | 33W | vs | 75W | 2.3x lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
