NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it produces a clear winner. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5,604 points against the GTX 560M's 4,855 points, a decisive 15.4% advantage. This is not a marginal gap; it represents a substantial generational leap in raw compute throughput. The GTX 760M's lead is even more striking when placed in context: its average benchmark score of 5,236 positions it just 0.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, while the GTX 560M's average of 4,855 sits 0.2% below the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX.

Looking at the broader performance landscape, the GTX 760M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 560M rests at the 28th percentile. That three-percentile gap may sound modest, but the benchmark delta tells a more meaningful story. The 760M's score of 5,604 in OpenCL is not merely better—it is a full 15.4% higher than the 560M's 4,855. In practical terms, this means the 760M completes compute workloads noticeably faster, with the margin widening as the workload scales.

The GTX 560M's nearest rival list reveals an interesting anomaly: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB appears with an average score of 4,901, merely 0.9% higher than the 560M. This suggests that the Geekbench OpenCL metric, while useful for comparing these two mobile parts, does not always align with modern desktop GPU hierarchies. For the purposes of this head-to-head, however, the data is unambiguous: the GTX 760M wins the only shared benchmark, and it wins by a comfortable margin.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760M wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, so its victory is absolute in the measured categories. Its OpenCL score of 5,604 outperforms the GTX 560M's 4,855 by 15.4%, giving it the edge in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. This includes workloads like video encoding, physics simulations, and some content-creation applications that offload processing to the GPU.

The GTX 760M also wins on memory capacity, offering 2 GB versus the 560M's 1,536 MB. While the benchmark data does not directly measure gaming performance, the additional memory and higher bandwidth (64.13 GB/s vs 60.00 GB/s) suggest the 760M is better equipped for modern textures and higher-resolution assets. Its 128-bit bus is narrower than the 560M's 192-bit interface, yet the 760M still achieves higher effective bandwidth due to faster memory clocks—4 Gbps effective versus 2.5 Gbps effective.

For the GTX 560M, there are no benchmark wins to claim. Its only available score, 4,855 in OpenCL, trails the 760M by a significant margin. The 560M does hold advantages in raw pixel throughput per memory bus width, but this does not translate into any measured performance victory. Its 24 ROPs exceed the 760M's 16 ROPs, which could theoretically aid fill-rate-bound scenarios, but the pixel rate data tells a different story: the 760M achieves 11.50 GPixel/s versus the 560M's 6.200 GPixel/s. The 560M's higher ROP count is effectively neutralized by the 760M's superior clock speeds and architecture efficiency.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M than the GTX 560M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 760M scores 5,604 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 560M scores 4,855 points. This results in a 15.4% performance advantage for the GTX 760M.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 760M has an average benchmark score of 5,236, compared to the GTX 560M's 4,855. The 760M's average places it 0.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and 1.5% above the AMD Radeon R7 M260X.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both the GTX 760M and GTX 560M support DirectX 12 (11_0). However, the GTX 760M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 560M has no listed Vulkan support.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two GPUs?

A: The GTX 760M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 560M features 1,536 MB of GDDR5. The 760M also has higher effective memory speed at 4 Gbps versus 2.5 Gbps.

Q: How do the GPUs compare in terms of overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The GTX 760M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 560M sits at the 28th percentile. This indicates the 760M performs better than a larger proportion of the GPU population.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The GTX 760M achieves 11.50 GPixel/s and 46.02 GTexel/s, while the GTX 560M achieves 6.200 GPixel/s and 24.80 GTexel/s. The 760M is roughly 85% faster in pixel fill rate and 86% faster in texture fill rate.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly across nearly every specification category. The GTX 760M uses the GK106S chip built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip on a larger 40 nm process. This process shrink allows the 760M to pack 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The 560M, by contrast, contains 1,170 million transistors on a larger 238 mm² die, yielding only 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of advancement. The GTX 760M has a base clock of 628 MHz with a boost clock of 719 MHz, whereas the GTX 560M has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks differ dramatically: the 760M runs at 1,002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, while the 560M runs at 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective speed. The 760M's memory interface is narrower at 128 bit versus 192 bit, but its faster memory compensates, resulting in higher bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s compared to 60.00 GB/s.

Shading resources favor the 760M overwhelmingly. It features 768 shading units and 64 texture mapping units, versus 192 shading units and 32 TMUs on the 560M. The 560M counters with 24 ROPs against the 760M's 16 ROPs. Compute performance reflects the shading unit disparity: the 760M delivers 1,104.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the 560M manages 595.2 GFLOPS. Power consumption favors the 760M as well, with a 55 W TDP versus the 560M's 75 W TDP, despite the 760M's superior performance.

Bus interfaces differ too. The GTX 760M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 560M uses MXM-B (3.0). Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The 760M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 560M has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans two distinct NVIDIA generations. The GTX 760M is built on the Kepler architecture, while the GTX 560M uses the older Fermi 2.0 architecture. Kepler represents a fundamental redesign focused on efficiency and compute throughput, whereas Fermi 2.0 was an incremental refinement of the original Fermi design.

The manufacturing process difference is stark: 28 nm for Kepler versus 40 nm for Fermi 2.0. This allows the 760M to pack more than double the transistors—2,540 million versus 1,170 million—into a slightly smaller die. The 760M's die size of 221 mm² is actually smaller than the 560M's 238 mm², yet it contains over twice the transistors. This density improvement is the defining architectural advantage of the newer generation.

Shading architecture diverges substantially. The 760M's 768 shading units represent a 4x increase over the 560M's 192 units. Texture mapping units double from 32 to 64. The 560M's 24 ROPs exceed the 760M's 16, but the Kepler architecture achieves higher pixel rates through its more efficient scheduling. The 760M's boost clock behavior, with a 719 MHz boost versus 628 MHz base, is a feature absent from the 560M's specification sheet entirely.

Memory architecture also evolves. The 560M's 192-bit bus with 625 MHz memory is a Fermi-era design; the 760M narrows the bus to 128 bit but compensates with much faster GDDR5 running at 4 Gbps effective. Both use GDDR5, but the newer part achieves higher bandwidth with a narrower interface, demonstrating improved memory controller efficiency. The 760M's 2 GB capacity also exceeds the 560M's 1,536 MB, providing more headroom for modern workloads.

Feature support reflects the generational divide. The 760M includes Vulkan 1.2.175 support, absent from the 560M. Both share DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support, but the Kepler part's instruction set and scheduling improvements are not captured in API version numbers alone. The 760M's FP32 output of 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus the 560M's 595.2 GFLOPS is a direct measure of this architectural efficiency.

The Verdict

The data presents a one-sided comparison. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 15.4%, and it holds advantages in nearly every measurable specification. Its 55 W TDP is lower than the 560M's 75 W, its FP32 compute is 85% higher, its memory bandwidth is higher, and its transistor density is more than double. The 560M's only notable specification wins are its 24 ROPs versus 16 and its wider 192-bit memory bus, but neither translates into a benchmark victory.

Users seeking the stronger performer should choose the GTX 760M without hesitation. It offers better OpenCL scores, more memory, faster effective memory speed, and superior fill rates—all while consuming less power. The 560M is an older design from the Fermi era, and the data reflects its age. Its 28th percentile ranking versus the 760M's 31st percentile confirms the newer part's superiority in the broader GPU landscape.

The GTX 560M retains one theoretical advantage: its higher ROP count could benefit specific fill-rate-bound workloads at low resolutions. However, the measured pixel rate of 6.200 GPixel/s versus the 760M's 11.50 GPixel/s negates this advantage in practice. For anyone choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the GTX 760M is the clear recommendation based on benchmark performance, efficiency, and feature support. The 560M's only justification would be if it were available at a significantly lower cost, but pricing data is not part of this analysis, and performance metrics uniformly favor the newer part.