NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA RTX A400 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M. In both tests, the RTX A400 is the outright winner, with margins that are not close.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22,844 points against the GTX 760M’s 5,604 points. That is a delta of 307.6% in favor of the RTX A400. In practical terms, the RTX A400 delivers more than four times the raw compute performance in this workload. The OpenCL test is a general-purpose compute benchmark, so this gap reflects the difference in architecture generation and memory bandwidth, not just clock speed.

The second head-to-head test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows an even wider margin. The RTX A400 scores 22,237 points, while the GTX 760M scores 4,868. The delta here is 356.8% in favor of the RTX A400. Vulkan performance is heavily dependent on modern hardware features, driver optimization, and architecture efficiency. The RTX A400’s Ampere architecture is built for contemporary APIs, while the GTX 760M’s Kepler architecture is from an older era. The result is that the RTX A400 is over four and a half times faster in Vulkan, which is a critical metric for current gaming and compute workloads.

Looking at the overall average benchmark score, the RTX A400 sits at 6,078 points, while the GTX 760M averages 5,236 points. That is a roughly 16% advantage for the RTX A400 across all recorded tests, though the head-to-head tests show a much larger gap. The average score includes more tests, but the two direct comparisons are the most reliable indicators of relative performance.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the NVIDIA RTX A400 as the superior product in every recorded benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher percentile rank (35th vs 31st), and has a higher average benchmark score. The RTX A400 also benefits from being an active production product, whereas the GTX 760M is end-of-life.

However, the verdict depends on use case. The GTX 760M is a mobile part from 2013, built for laptops with an MXM module form factor. Its performance is sufficient for older games and light productivity, but it is not suitable for modern compute workloads. The RTX A400 is a workstation-focused card with support for modern APIs and hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor operations. For anyone upgrading from a GTX 760M-era laptop or building a low-profile workstation, the RTX A400 is the clear choice.

The GTX 760M does hold one advantage in the database: its texture rate. At 46.02 GTexel/s, it exceeds the RTX A400’s 42.29 GTexel/s. That suggests the GTX 760M may have an edge in certain fill-rate-bound legacy workloads. However, this is a narrow domain, and it does not show up in the overall benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA RTX A400 wins:

• Every head-to-head benchmark: OpenCL and Vulkan.
• Overall average benchmark score: 6,078 vs. 5,236.
• Percentile rank: 36th vs. 31st percentile of all GPUs.
• Memory bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s vs. 64.13 GB/s.
• Modern API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs. DirectX 12 (11_0).
• Compute capabilities: 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 vs. 1,104.4 GFLOPS FP32.
• Ray tracing and tensor cores: present on the RTX A400, absent on the GTX 760M.
• Process node: 8 nm vs. 28 nm, which explains much of the efficiency and clock advantage.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M wins:

• Texture fill rate: 46.02 GTexel/s vs. 42.29 GTexel/s.
• Memory bus width: 128-bit vs. 64-bit, which can help in certain bandwidth-latency scenarios.
• Lower transistor density: 11.5M / mm² vs. 43.5M / mm², which is not a performance win but a design difference.
• It is a mobile part, so it fits in MXM modules, while the RTX A400 is a desktop single-slot card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score in Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,237 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 4,868. The RTX A400 is 356.8% faster in that test.

Q: Is the GTX 760M a viable option for modern games?

A: The benchmark data suggests it is not. It has no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and its DirectX support is only 12 (11_0). Its Vulkan score of 4,868 is far below the RTX A400’s 22,237. It may run older titles, but modern API-heavy games will suffer.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX A400 has a memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s, while the GTX 760M has 64.13 GB/s. This means the RTX A400 can move data to and from memory faster, which is critical for compute and high-resolution textures.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX A400 has ray tracing cores (6 RT cores) and tensor cores (24 tensor cores). The GTX 760M has neither, meaning it cannot accelerate ray tracing or DLSS-style AI workloads.

Q: What is the overall performance difference in the database?

A: The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6,078, while the GTX 760M has an average of 5,236. The RTX A400 also sits in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 760M sits in the 31st.

Q: Which GPU is better for compute tasks?

A: The RTX A400 is significantly better. It scores 22,844 in Geekbench OpenCL vs. the GTX 760M’s 5,604. It also has a dedicated tensor core count, modern FP32 performance of 2.706 TFLOPS, and a shorter process node, making it far more efficient for general compute.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, with the GA107 chip. It packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The GTX 760M uses the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with the GK106S chip. It contains 2,540 million transistors over a larger 221 mm² die, resulting in only 11.5 million transistors per square millimeter.

The RTX A400 has 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, which the GTX 760M completely lacks. This means the A400 can accelerate real-time ray tracing and AI workloads, while the GTX 760M is purely raster-based. The RTX A400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GTX 760M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Clocks are also different: the RTX A400 runs at a base of 1417 MHz and boosts to 1762 MHz, while the GTX 760M is limited to 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost. The RTX A400’s memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the GTX 760M memory runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The RTX A400 achieves a pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 42.29 GTexel/s, versus the GTX 760M’s 11.50 GPixel/s and 46.02 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

Here are the fields where the two GPUs differ:

• Process Node: 8 nm (Samsung) vs. 28 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 8,700 million vs. 2,540 million
• Die Size: 200 mm² vs. 221 mm²
• Transistor Density: 43.5M / mm² vs. 11.5M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1417 MHz vs. 628 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1762 MHz vs. 719 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) vs. 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB GDDR6 vs. 2 GB GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs. 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s vs. 64.13 GB/s
• Shading Units: 768 vs. 768 (same)
• TMUs: 24 vs. 64
• ROPs: 16 vs. 16 (same)
• RT Cores: 6 vs. 0
• Tensor Cores: 24 vs. 0
• Pixel Rate: 28.19 GPixel/s vs. 11.50 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 42.29 GTexel/s vs. 46.02 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.706 TFLOPS vs. 1,104.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 50 W vs. 55 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs. MXM Module
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 vs. PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a vs. Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs. 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan: 1.4 vs. 1.2.175
• Production Status: Active vs. End-of-life
• Release Date: April 2024 vs. May 2013
• Predecessor: Quadro Turing vs. GeForce 600M
• Successor: Workstation Ada vs. GeForce 800M

The RTX A400 is a modern, low-power (50 W), single-slot desktop card with current API support. The GTX 760M is an older 55 W mobile module with smaller memory and no modern compute features.