GeForce GTS 160M vs Radeon HD 2900 XT

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 Radeon HD 2900 XT is on rank 666, 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 Radeon HD 2900 XT

#656

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

6580%

#658

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

5965%

#659

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

5949%

#663

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

5410%

#664

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

5373%

#666

Radeon HD 2900 XT

MSRP: $399|Avg: $20

100%

#667

Mobility Radeon 4100

MSRP: $49|Avg: $49

100%

#668

GeForce 9700M GT

MSRP: $200|Avg: $40

99%

#669

GeForce 9300 SE

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

99%

#670

Mobility Radeon X2500

MSRP: $50|Avg: $15

99%

#671

Radeon HD 7520G + 8750M Dual

MSRP: $250|Avg: $57

92%

#672

GeForce 9800M GTX

MSRP: $300|Avg: $30

92%

#673

Mobility Radeon HD 4300 Serisi

MSRP: $49|Avg: $10

90%

#674

GeForce 505

MSRP: $99|Avg: $15

88%

#675

GeForce 9200M GE

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

87%

#676

Mobility Radeon. HD 5470

MSRP: $150|Avg: $25

87%

#677

Radeon HD 2600 XT

MSRP: $199|Avg: $40

86%

#678

GeForce 7500 LE

MSRP: $60|Avg: $15

86%

#679

GeForce 9650M GT

MSRP: $100|Avg: $25

83%

#680

GeForce 9650M GS

MSRP: $199|Avg: $20

82%

#681

GeForce 8400 SE

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

82%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTS 160M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 2900 XT.

Insight	GeForce GTS 160M	Radeon HD 2900 XT
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+2.9%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.9%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015))
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 Radeon HD 2900 XT offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon HD 2900 XT holds the technical lead. Priced at $20 (vs $30), it costs 33% less, resulting in a 45.8% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTS 160M	Radeon HD 2900 XT
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+45.8%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30)	✅More affordable ($20)

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

Radeon HD 2900 XT Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTS 160M and Radeon HD 2900 XT

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.

Radeon HD 2900 XT

The Radeon HD 2900 XT is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 7 2013. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 725 MHz. It has 480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 660 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTS 160M scores 679 and the Radeon HD 2900 XT reaches 660 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTS 160M is built on Kepler while the Radeon HD 2900 XT uses TeraScale 2, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 480 (Radeon HD 2900 XT). Raw compute: 0.7296 TFLOPS (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 0.696 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 2900 XT).

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	Radeon HD 2900 XT
G3D Mark Score	679+3%	660
Architecture	Kepler	TeraScale 2
Process Node	28 nm	40 nm
Shading Units	384	480+25%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.7296 TFLOPS+5%	0.696 TFLOPS
ROPs	16+100%	8
TMUs	32+33%	24
L1 Cache	32 KB	48 KB+50%
L2 Cache	256 KB	256 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	Radeon HD 2900 XT
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 1 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	Radeon HD 2900 XT
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: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 10.0 (Radeon HD 2900 XT). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	Radeon HD 2900 XT
DirectX	11.1 (10_0)+11%	10.0
Max Displays	2	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTS 160M) vs UVD+ (Radeon HD 2900 XT). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP2 vs UVD+. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTS 160M) vs H.264 (Radeon HD 2900 XT).

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	Radeon HD 2900 XT
Encoder	PureVideo HD VP2	UVD+
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP2	UVD+
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTS 160M draws 45W versus the Radeon HD 2900 XT's 25W — a 57.1% difference. The Radeon HD 2900 XT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 350W (Radeon HD 2900 XT). Power connectors: Legacy vs 1x 6-pin.

Feature	GeForce GTS 160M	Radeon HD 2900 XT
TDP	45W	25W-44%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Legacy	1x 6-pin
Length	—	241mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	90°C	—
Perf/Watt	15.1	26.4+75%

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon HD 2900 XT costs 33.3% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 22.6 (GeForce GTS 160M) vs 33.0 (Radeon HD 2900 XT) — the Radeon HD 2900 XT offers 46% better value. The Radeon HD 2900 XT is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2012).