So sánh gtx 850 và gtx 860m năm 2024

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores640640CUDA cores1152 or 640640Core clock speed797 MHzUp to 936 MHzBoost clock speed915 MHzno dataNumber of transistors1,870 million1,870 millionManufacturing process technology28 nm28 nmPower consumption (TDP)75 Watt45 WattTexture fill rate43.4036.08Floating-point performance1,389 gflops1,155 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 860M and GeForce GTX 850M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizemedium sizedmedium sizedBus supportPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16Supplementary power connectorsNoneno dataSLI options++

Memory

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 typeGDDR5DDR3, GDDR5Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GBStandard memory configurationGDDR5DDR3 or GDDR5Memory bus width128 Bit128 BitMemory clock speedUp to 2500 MHzUp to 2500 MHzMemory bandwidth80.0 GB/s80.0 GB/sShared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputseDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160Up to 3840x2160LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200Up to 1920x1200VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536Up to 2048x1536DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160Up to 3840x2160HDMI++HDCP content protection++7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI++TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming++

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++

API support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)Shader Model5.15.1OpenGL4.54.5OpenCL1.11.1Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

860M outperforms 850M by 20% in our combined benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

860M outperforms 850M by 20% in Passmark.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

860M outperforms 850M by 21% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

860M outperforms 850M by 12% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

860M outperforms 850M by 27% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

860M outperforms 850M by 28% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

860M outperforms 850M by 3% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

860M outperforms 850M by 22% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

860M outperforms 850M by 20% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

860M outperforms 850M by 18% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

860M outperforms 850M by 20% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

860M outperforms 850M by 25% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

850M outperforms 860M by 10% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

850M outperforms 860M by 6% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

860M outperforms 850M by 6% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

860M outperforms 850M by 10% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

860M outperforms 850M by 3% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

860M outperforms 850M by 18% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

850M outperforms 860M by 8% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Benchmark coverage: 2%

860M outperforms 850M by 18% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

Benchmark coverage: 2%

860M outperforms 850M by 25% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

860M outperforms 850M by 6% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

850M outperforms 860M by 10% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

850M outperforms 860M by 6% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Benchmark coverage: 2%

860M outperforms 850M by 10% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

Benchmark coverage: 2%

860M outperforms 850M by 3% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

Benchmark coverage: 2%

850M outperforms 860M by 8% in SPECviewperf 12 - Energy.

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:

900p91 84 Full HD37 32 4K13 10

Performance in popular games

Full HD Low Preset

Cyberpunk 207712−14 10−11

Full HD Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey16−18

+23.1%

12−14

−23.1%

Assassin's Creed Valhalla9−10

+50%

6−7

−50%

Battlefield 524−27

+23.8%

21−24

−23.8%

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare21−24

+15.8%

18−20

−15.8%

Cyberpunk 207712−14

+20%

10−11

−20%

Far Cry 518−20

+26.7%

14−16

−26.7%

Far Cry New Dawn20−22

+25%

16−18

−25%

Forza Horizon 427−30

+22.7%

21−24

−22.7%

Hitman 318−20

+26.7%

14−16

−26.7%

Horizon Zero Dawn14−16

+25%

12−14

−25%

Red Dead Redemption 214−16

+16.7%

12−14

−16.7%

Shadow of the Tomb Raider16−18

+13.3%

14−16

−13.3%

Watch Dogs: Legion12−14

+33.3%

9−10

−33.3%

Full HD High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey16−18

+23.1%

12−14

−23.1%

Assassin's Creed Valhalla9−10

+50%

6−7

−50%

Battlefield 524−27

+23.8%

21−24

−23.8%

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare21−24

+15.8%

18−20

−15.8%

Cyberpunk 207712−14

+20%

10−11

−20%

Far Cry 518−20

+26.7%

14−16

−26.7%

Far Cry New Dawn20−22

+25%

16−18

−25%

Forza Horizon 427−30

+22.7%

21−24

−22.7%

Hitman 318−20

+26.7%

14−16

−26.7%

Horizon Zero Dawn14−16

+25%

12−14

−25%

Metro Exodus10−12

+22.2%

9−10

−22.2%

Red Dead Redemption 214−16

+16.7%

12−14

−16.7%

Shadow of the Tomb Raider16−18

+13.3%

14−16

−13.3%

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt20

−5%

21

+5%

Watch Dogs: Legion12−14

+33.3%

9−10

−33.3%

Full HD Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey16−18

+23.1%

12−14

−23.1%

Assassin's Creed Valhalla9−10

+50%

6−7

−50%

Battlefield 524−27

+23.8%

21−24

−23.8%

Cyberpunk 207712−14

+20%

10−11

−20%

Far Cry 518−20

+26.7%

14−16

−26.7%

Far Cry New Dawn20−22

+25%

16−18

−25%

Forza Horizon 427−30

+22.7%

21−24

−22.7%

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt12

+9.1%

11

−9.1%

Watch Dogs: Legion12−14

+33.3%

9−10

−33.3%

1440p High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare12−14

+20%

10−11

−20%

Hitman 312−14

+9.1%

10−12

−9.1%

Horizon Zero Dawn12−14

+8.3%

12−14

−8.3%

Metro Exodus6−7

+50%

4−5

−50%

Red Dead Redemption 25−6

+25%

4−5

−25%

Shadow of the Tomb Raider10−11

+11.1%

9−10

−11.1%

1440p Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey6−7

+50%

4−5

−50%

Assassin's Creed Valhalla2−3

+100%

1−2

−100%

Battlefield 510−11

+66.7%

6−7

−66.7%

Cyberpunk 20774−5

+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Far Cry 512−14

+20%

10−11

−20%

Far Cry New Dawn10−12

+37.5%

8−9

−37.5%

Forza Horizon 412−14

+30%

10−11

−30%

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt7−8

+40%

5−6

−40%

Watch Dogs: Legion3−4

+50%

2−3

−50%

4K High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare5−6

+25%

4−5

−25%

Hitman 37−8

+16.7%

6−7

−16.7%

Horizon Zero Dawn8−9

+14.3%

7−8

−14.3%

Metro Exodus2−3

+100%

1−2

−100%

Red Dead Redemption 24−5

+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Shadow of the Tomb Raider3−4

+50%

2−3

−50%

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt5−6

+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

4K Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey4−5

+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Assassin's Creed Valhalla2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

Battlefield 55−6

+150%

2−3

−150%

Cyberpunk 20771−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

Far Cry 57−8

+16.7%

6−7

−16.7%

Far Cry New Dawn9−10

+12.5%

8−9

−12.5%

Forza Horizon 49−10

+12.5%

8−9

−12.5%

Watch Dogs: Legion2−3

+100%

1−2

−100%

This is how GTX 860M and GTX 850M compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

• GTX 860M is 8.3% faster than GTX 850M

1080p resolution:

• GTX 860M is 15.6% faster than GTX 850M

4K resolution:

• GTX 860M is 30% faster than GTX 850M

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

• in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 860M is 150% faster than the GTX 850M.
• in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 850M is 5% faster than the GTX 860M.

All in all, in popular games:

• GTX 860M is ahead in 64 tests (96%)
• GTX 850M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
• there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Advantages and disadvantages

Performance score 7.82 6.50 Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 45 Watt

The GeForce GTX 860M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 850M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Cast your own vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.