Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M based on its gaming and benchmarks.
See full details GeForce GTX 765M vs GT 735M |
Released May, 2013
Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M
- 797 MHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
6.3 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
6.1 Out of 10
by Tim-Verry (Jun, 2013)These chips are still based on Kepler (600-series), but feature more CUDA cores, more memory, a wider memory bus, and faster clockspeeds.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 765M vs 735M among Laptop GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 6.3 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Nvidia GeForce GTX 765MGPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark06 score | 19,624 | vs | 8,924 | Around 2.2x better 3DMark06 score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly higher clock speed | 797 MHz | vs | 575 MHz | Around 40% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher effective memory clock speed | 4,008 MHz | vs | 1,800 MHz | Around 2.2x higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Better PassMark score | 1,887 | vs | 631 | Around 3x better PassMark score | |||
| 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 | |||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 64.1 GB/s | vs | 14.4 GB/s | Around 4.5x higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 1,224.2 GFLOPS | vs | 441.6 GFLOPS | More than 2.8x better floating-point performance | |||
| Significantly more texture mapping units | 64 | vs | 16 | 48 more texture mapping units | |||
| Slightly better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 4,021 | vs | 1,692.5 | Around 2.5x better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 12.75 GPixel/s | vs | 4.6 GPixel/s | More than 2.8x higher pixel rate | |||
| Significantly better T-Rex score | 3,352.1 | vs | 2,432.09 | Around 40% better T-Rex score | |||
| Better cloud gate factor score | 15.29 | vs | 8.83 | Around 75% better cloud gate factor score | |||
| 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 | |||
| Significantly higher dead space 3 framerate | 70.1 fps | vs | 24.9 fps | More than 2.8x higher dead space 3 framerate | |||
| More render output processors | 16 | vs | 8 | Twice as many render output processors | |||
| Wider memory bus | 128 bit | vs | 64 bit | 2x wider memory bus | |||
| Higher bioshock infinite framerate | 23.3 | vs | 8.3 | More than 2.8x higher bioshock infinite framerate | |||
| 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
