
GeForce GTX 760M vs Radeon R6 M340DX

GeForce GTX 760M
Popular choices:

Radeon R6 M340DX
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. The GeForce GTX 760M is positioned at rank #97 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 760M
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R6 M340DX is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GTX 760M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 760M | Radeon R6 M340DX |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R6 M340DX offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R6 M340DX holds the technical lead. Priced at $10 (vs $40), it costs 75% less, resulting in a 317.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 760M | Radeon R6 M340DX |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+317.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($40) | ✅More affordable ($10) |
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 GTX 760M and Radeon R6 M340DX

GeForce GTX 760M
The GeForce GTX 760M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 30 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 657 MHz to 657 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,726 points.

Radeon R6 M340DX
The Radeon R6 M340DX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 12 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 955 MHz to 1030 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,800 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 760M scores 1,726 and the Radeon R6 M340DX reaches 1,800 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 760M is built on Kepler while the Radeon R6 M340DX uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 760M) vs 384 (Radeon R6 M340DX). Raw compute: 1.009 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 760M) vs 0.791 TFLOPS (Radeon R6 M340DX). Boost clocks: 657 MHz vs 1030 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760M | Radeon R6 M340DX |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,726 | 1,800+4% |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 768+100% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.009 TFLOPS+28% | 0.791 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 657 MHz | 1030 MHz+57% |
| ROPs | 16+100% | 8 |
| TMUs | 64+167% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 96 KB+50% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760M | Radeon R6 M340DX |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 760M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R6 M340DX has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 760M offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760M | Radeon R6 M340DX |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB+300% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 760M draws 55W versus the Radeon R6 M340DX's 30W — a 58.8% difference. The Radeon R6 M340DX is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 760M) vs 350W (Radeon R6 M340DX). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760M | Radeon R6 M340DX |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W | 30W-45% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 1mm |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Perf/Watt | 31.4 | 60.0+91% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R6 M340DX costs 75% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 43.1 (GeForce GTX 760M) vs 180.0 (Radeon R6 M340DX) — the Radeon R6 M340DX offers 317.6% better value. The Radeon R6 M340DX is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2013).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 760M | Radeon R6 M340DX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $0 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40 | $10-75% |
| Performance per Dollar | 43.1 | 180.0+318% |
| Codename | GK106 | Jet |
| Release | May 30 2013 | December 12 2015 |
| Ranking | #725 | #852 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















