GeForce GTX 860M vs GTX 770M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 770M SLI and GeForce GTX 860M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 770M SLI outperforms GTX 860M by an impressive 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 403 | 531 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.85 | 7.27 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | no data | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 13 January 2014 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1920 | 1152 or 640 |
| Core clock speed | 811 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1085 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 2540 Million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 43.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.389 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | + |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width | 2x 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | Up to 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP content protection | - | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | - | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | - | + |
| Optimus | + | + |
| Ansel | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 140−150
+53.8%
| 91
−53.8%
|
| Full HD | 55−60
+48.6%
| 37
−48.6%
|
| 4K | 18−21
+38.5%
| 13
−38.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+66.7%
|
14−16
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+62.5%
|
30−35
−62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+66.7%
|
14−16
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+55.6%
|
45−50
−55.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+54.5%
|
30−35
−54.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+59.3%
|
27−30
−59.3%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+35.9%
|
75−80
−35.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+62.5%
|
30−35
−62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+43.7%
|
110−120
−43.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+66.7%
|
14−16
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+42.1%
|
55−60
−42.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+55.6%
|
45−50
−55.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+54.5%
|
30−35
−54.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+76.9%
|
26
−76.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+59.3%
|
27−30
−59.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+60%
|
20
−60%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+35.9%
|
75−80
−35.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+62.5%
|
30−35
−62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+66.7%
|
14−16
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+42.1%
|
55−60
−42.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+54.5%
|
30−35
−54.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+59.3%
|
27−30
−59.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+167%
|
12
−167%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+35.9%
|
75−80
−35.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+55.6%
|
45−50
−55.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+57.9%
|
55−60
−57.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+110%
|
40−45
−110%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+53.6%
|
80−85
−53.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+113%
|
14−16
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+61.5%
|
12−14
−61.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+68.4%
|
35−40
−68.4%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+59.3%
|
27−30
−59.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
This is how GTX 770M SLI and GTX 860M compete in popular games:
- GTX 770M SLI is 54% faster in 900p
- GTX 770M SLI is 49% faster in 1080p
- GTX 770M SLI is 38% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 770M SLI is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 770M SLI surpassed GTX 860M in all 67 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.80 | 7.95 |
| Recency | 30 May 2013 | 13 January 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 770M SLI has a 61% higher aggregate performance score.
GTX 860M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 100% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 770M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 860M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
