Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M based on its gaming and benchmarks.
See full details GeForce GTX 860M vs GT 750M |
Released March, 2014
Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M
- 797 MHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
6.5 Out of 10
by Ryan-Smith (Oct, 2014)This puts the throughput of T820 designs at a range of 10 FLOPs and 1 texel per clock to 40 FLOPs and 4 texels per clock, while T830 will scale from 20/1 to 80/4 respectively.
VS
Released January, 2013
Nvidia GeForce GT 750M
- 941 MHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
6.1 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.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 860M vs 750M 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 | |
| 6.5 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 18,276.5 | vs | 8,200 | Around 2.2x better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 1,836.3 GFLOPS | vs | 722.7 GFLOPS | More than 2.5x better floating-point performance | |||
| Significantly higher texture rate | 76.5 GTexel/s | vs | 30.11 GTexel/s | More than 2.5x higher texture rate | |||
| Significantly more texture mapping units | 96 | vs | 32 | Three times as many texture mapping units | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 5,000 MHz | vs | 4,000 MHz | 25% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 19.13 GPixel/s | vs | 7.53 GPixel/s | More than 2.5x higher pixel rate | |||
| Significantly more shading units | 1,152 | vs | 384 | Three times as many shading units | |||
| Slightly higher memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | vs | 64 GB/s | 25% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Better T-Rex score | 3.42 frames/s | vs | 1.15 frames/s | Around 3x better T-Rex score | |||
| Significantly higher dead space 3 framerate | 84.5 fps | vs | 39.5 fps | Around 2.2x higher dead space 3 framerate | |||
| Better sky diver factor score | 250.81 | vs | 144.64 | Around 75% better sky diver factor score | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,250 MHz | vs | 1,000 MHz | 25% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Higher BioShock infinite framerate | 41.57 fps | vs | 16.3 fps | More than 2.5x higher BioShock infinite framerate | |||
| Higher diablo III framerate | 105.24 fps | vs | 66.6 fps | Around 60% higher diablo III framerate | |||
| Higher battlefield 4 framerate | 28.85 | vs | 12 | Around 2.5x higher battlefield 4 framerate | |||
| Higher crysis 3 framerate | 18.75 fps | vs | 9.85 fps | More than 90% higher crysis 3 framerate | |||
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark06 score | 13,670 | vs | 4,902 | More than 2.8x better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Higher clock speed | 941 MHz | vs | 797 MHz | Around 20% higher clock speed | |||
| Better manhattan score | 1,732.89 | vs | 1,260.37 | More than 35% better manhattan score | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 967 MHz | vs | 915 MHz | More than 5% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Lower TDP | 50W | vs | 75W | Around 35% lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
