GeForce GT 140 vs GeForce GTS 160M
GeForce GT 140
Popular choices:
GeForce GTS 160M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GT 140 is positioned at rank 188 and the GeForce GTS 160M is on rank 275, so the GeForce GT 140 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 140
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTS 160M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTS 160M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GT 140.
| Insight | GeForce GT 140 | GeForce GTS 160M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GT 140 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GT 140 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $30), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 93.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GT 140 | GeForce GTS 160M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+93.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GT 140 and GeForce GTS 160M
GeForce GT 140
The GeForce GT 140 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 29 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 993 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 64W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 658 points. Launch price was $89.
GeForce GTS 160M
The GeForce GTS 160M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 22 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from Up to 900 MHz to 950 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 679 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GT 140 scores 658 and the GeForce GTS 160M reaches 679 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 140 is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTS 160M uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 140) vs 384 (GeForce GTS 160M). Raw compute: 0.7626 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 140) vs 0.7296 TFLOPS (GeForce GTS 160M).
| Feature | GeForce GT 140 | GeForce GTS 160M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 658 | 679+3% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7626 TFLOPS+5% | 0.7296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GT 140 | GeForce GTS 160M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 1 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GT 140 | GeForce GTS 160M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.0 (GeForce GT 140) vs 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTS 160M). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GT 140 | GeForce GTS 160M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.0 | 11.1 (10_0)+11% |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce GT 140) vs PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTS 160M). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP3 vs PureVideo HD VP2. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (GeForce GT 140) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTS 160M).
| Feature | GeForce GT 140 | GeForce GTS 160M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | PureVideo HD VP2 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP3 | PureVideo HD VP2 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GT 140 draws 64W versus the GeForce GTS 160M's 45W — a 34.9% difference. The GeForce GTS 160M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 140) vs 350W (GeForce GTS 160M). Power connectors: None vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 90°C.
| Feature | GeForce GT 140 | GeForce GTS 160M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 64W | 45W-30% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Legacy |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C-6% | 90°C |
| Perf/Watt | 10.3 | 15.1+47% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GT 140 costs 50% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 43.9 (GeForce GT 140) vs 22.6 (GeForce GTS 160M) — the GeForce GT 140 offers 94.2% better value. The GeForce GT 140 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GT 140 | GeForce GTS 160M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $99 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-50% | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | 43.9+94% | 22.6 |
| Codename | GK107 | GK107 |
| Release | May 29 2014 | March 22 2012 |
| Ranking | #777 | #828 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GT 140 and GeForce GTS 160M
