Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M based on its .
See full details GeForce GTX 860M vs GT 750M |
Released January, 2014
Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M
- 1 GHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
7.4 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 January, 2013
Nvidia GeForce GT 750M
- 941 MHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
6.3 Out of 10
by Slobodan-Simic (Feb, 2014)Although we have no idea from which partner this GTX 750 comes, it features a rather simple dual-slot cooler and standard PCB design with a 2+1-phase VRM which draws power from a single 6-pin PCI-Express power connector.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 860M vs 750M
Gaming | |
Real world tests using the latest 3D games | |
| BioShock Infinite, Crysis 3, Dead Space 3 and Diablo III | |
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 | |
GPUBoss Score | |
Gaming, Benchmarks and Compute Performance | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Nvidia GeForce GTX 860MGPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 23,220.5 | vs | 2,543 | Around 9.2x better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 18,276.5 | vs | 8,200 | Around 2.2x better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Higher clock speed | 1,029 MHz | vs | 941 MHz | Around 10% higher clock speed | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 1,317 GFLOPS | vs | 722.7 GFLOPS | More than 80% better floating-point performance | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 5,012 MHz | vs | 4,000 MHz | More than 25% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 80.2 GB/s | vs | 64 GB/s | More than 25% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 16.5 GPixel/s | vs | 7.53 GPixel/s | Around 2.2x higher pixel rate | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 1,085 MHz | vs | 967 MHz | More than 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Higher texture rate | 41.2 GTexel/s | vs | 30.1 GTexel/s | More than 35% higher texture rate | |||
| Significantly higher dead space 3 framerate | 84.5 fps | vs | 39.5 fps | Around 2.2x higher dead space 3 framerate | |||
| Significantly higher memory clock speed | 1,253 MHz | vs | 1,000 MHz | More than 25% higher memory clock speed | |||
| More shading units | 640 | vs | 384 | 256 more shading units | |||
| Significantly higher BioShock infinite framerate | 41 fps | vs | 15.9 fps | More than 2.5x higher BioShock infinite framerate | |||
| Better passmark direct compute score | 1,594 | vs | 730 | Around 2.2x better passmark direct compute score | |||
| Higher diablo III framerate | 105.24 fps | vs | 66.6 fps | Around 60% higher diablo III framerate | |||
| Higher crysis 3 framerate | 18.8 fps | vs | 9.85 fps | More than 90% higher crysis 3 framerate | |||
| Slightly more texture mapping units | 40 | vs | 32 | 8 more texture mapping units | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly better 3DMark06 score | 13,670 | vs | 4,903 | More than 2.8x better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Lower TDP | 50W | vs | 75W | Around 35% lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
