GeForce GTS 160M vs NVS 510

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 GTS 160M is positioned at rank 275 and the NVS 510 is on rank 321, so the GeForce GTS 160M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTS 160M

#265

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

639%

#267

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

580%

#268

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

578%

#272

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

526%

#273

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

522%

#275

GeForce GTS 160M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30

100%

#276

GeForce GTX 470M SLI

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $60

100%

#277

Radeon Vega 8 Ryzen 3 3200G

MSRP: $99|Avg: $70

99%

#279

Radeon RX Vega 9

MSRP: $99|Avg: $50

99%

#282

Iris Xe Graphics G7

MSRP: $200|Avg: $100

98%

#283

Radeon R9 M395

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

97%

#285

GeForce GT 755M SLI

MSRP: $200|Avg: $50

97%

#287

GeForce GTX 950A

MSRP: $159|Avg: $30

96%

#288

Radeon 540X

MSRP: $99|Avg: $40

94%

#289

GeForce 930MX

MSRP: $80|Avg: $25

94%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar NVS 510

#306

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

9783%

#321

NVS 510

MSRP: $449|Avg: $15

100%

#322

GRID M60-1Q

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $50

98%

#323

GRID K280Q

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $50

94%

#324

FirePro M2000

MSRP: $300|Avg: $50

94%

#325

Tesla K20c

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $500

92%

#326

GRID M6-1Q

MSRP: $1500|Avg: $100

91%

#327

Quadro FX 380

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

91%

#328

Tesla C2050 / C2070

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $30

91%

#329

FirePro M7740

MSRP: $500|Avg: $500

88%

#330

Quadro FX 570

MSRP: $199|Avg: $15

86%

#331

RTXA5000-24Q

MSRP: $3721|Avg: $2100

85%

#332

GRID P40-1Q

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $150

85%

#334

Tesla C2050

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $95

84%

#335

Tesla M10

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $500

84%

#336

FirePro S10000

MSRP: $3599|Avg: $500

83%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The NVS 510 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (2 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTS 160M.

Insight	GeForce GTS 160M	NVS 510
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+100%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The NVS 510 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the NVS 510 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $30), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 100.3% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTS 160M	NVS 510
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+100.3%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30)	✅More affordable ($15)

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.

GeForce GTS 160M Benchmark Check

NVS 510 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTS 160M and NVS 510

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.

NVS 510

The NVS 510 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 4 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 902 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 512 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 680 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTS 160M scores 679 and the NVS 510 reaches 680 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTS 160M is built on Kepler while the NVS 510 uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 512 (NVS 510). Raw compute: 0.7296 TFLOPS (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 510). Boost clocks: 950 MHz vs 1033 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	NVS 510
G3D Mark Score	679	680
Architecture	Kepler	Maxwell
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	384	512 ×2+33%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.7296 TFLOPS	1.058 TFLOPS ×2+45%
Boost Clock	950 MHz	1033 MHz+9%
ROPs	16	16 ×2
TMUs	32	32 ×2
L1 Cache	32 KB	256 KB+700%
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	1 MB+300%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	NVS 510
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)

The GeForce GTS 160M comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the NVS 510 has 2 GB. The NVS 510 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 1 MB (NVS 510) — the NVS 510 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	NVS 510
VRAM Capacity	1 GB	2 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	1 MB+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 12 (11_0) (NVS 510). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	NVS 510
DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)+8%
OpenGL	3.3	4.6+39%
Max Displays	2	4+100%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 1st Gen NVENC (NVS 510). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP2 vs 1st Gen NVDEC (VP5). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTS 160M) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 (NVS 510).

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	NVS 510
Encoder	PureVideo HD VP2	1st Gen NVENC
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP2	1st Gen NVDEC (VP5)
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTS 160M draws 45W versus the NVS 510's 68W — a 40.7% difference. The GeForce GTS 160M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 350W (NVS 510). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 90°C vs 65°C.

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	NVS 510
TDP	45W-34%	68W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Legacy	PCIe-powered
Length	—	160mm
Height	—	69mm
Slots	0-100%	1
Temp (Load)	90°C	65°C-28%
Perf/Watt	15.1+51%	10.0

💰

Value Analysis

The NVS 510 costs 50% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 22.6 (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 45.3 (NVS 510) — the NVS 510 offers 100.4% better value. The NVS 510 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).