GeForce GTS 250 vs GTX 1060 3 GB
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB and GeForce GTS 250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1060 3 GB outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 1518% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 225 | 980 |
| Place by popularity | 21 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 21.80 | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 14.32 | 0.71 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | G92B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 4 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1060 3 GB has 27150% better value for money than GTS 250.
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 | 1152 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 738 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1708 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 123.0 | 44.93 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.935 TFLOPS | 0.3871 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 72 | 64 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 250 mm | 229 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 70.4 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Two Dual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.94 | 1.48 |
| Recency | 18 August 2016 | 4 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTX 1060 3 GB has a 1517.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 243.8% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 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.
