Arc A370M vs GeForce GTX 260

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260 with Arc A370M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 260
2008
896 MB GDDR3, 182 Watt
3.15

Arc A370M outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 322% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking751386
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.16no data
Power efficiency1.1926.00
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGT200DG2-128
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date16 June 2008 (16 years ago)30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1921024
Core clock speed576 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1550 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)182 Watt35 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate36.8699.20
Floating-point processing power0.4769 TFLOPS3.174 TFLOPS
ROPs2832
TMUs6464
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount896 MB4 GB
Memory bus width448 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed999 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth111.9 GB/s112.0 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVIHDTVNo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.6
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

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. 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.

GTX 260 3.15
Arc A370M 13.28
+322%

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.

GTX 260 1215
Arc A370M 5115
+321%

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 HD9−10
−333%
39
+333%
1440p4−5
−425%
21
+425%
4K9−10
−344%
40
+344%

Cost per frame, $

1080p49.89no data
1440p112.25no data
4K49.89no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 46
+0%
46
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 33
+0%
33
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 37
+0%
37
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Hitman 3 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20
+0%
20
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+0%
25
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Hitman 3 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 62
+0%
62
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18
+0%
18
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Hitman 3 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
+0%
53
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 15
+0%
15
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 37
+0%
37
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how GTX 260 and Arc A370M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A370M is 333% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A370M is 425% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A370M is 344% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.15 13.28
Recency 16 June 2008 30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 896 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 182 Watt 35 Watt

Arc A370M has a 321.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 983.3% more advanced lithography process, and 420% lower power consumption.

The Arc A370M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop card while Arc A370M is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

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


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GTX 260
Intel Arc A370M
Arc A370M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 606 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 165 votes

Rate Arc A370M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.