GeForce GTX 260M vs GTX 1060 3 GB
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB with GeForce GTX 260M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1060 3 GB outperforms GTX 260M by a whopping 2420% 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 | 1120 |
| Place by popularity | 21 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 21.80 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.32 | 1.05 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | G92 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 112 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1708 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 123.0 | 30.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.935 TFLOPS | 0.308 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 462 |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 72 | 56 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 250 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | Up to 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 61 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
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 | 2.1 |
| 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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 650−700
+2307%
| 27
−2307%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 0.31 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how GTX 1060 3 GB and GTX 260M compete in popular games:
- GTX 1060 3 GB is 2307% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 34 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.94 | 0.95 |
| Recency | 18 August 2016 | 3 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 65 Watt |
GTX 1060 3 GB has a 2420% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 306.3% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 260M, on the other hand, has 84.6% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 260M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
