GeForce RTX 2070 Super vs GTX 260

Place in the ranking	744	70
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.14	42.06
Power efficiency	1.20	15.22
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT200	TU104
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)	9 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$449	$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 2070 Super has 29943% better value for money than GTX 260.

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	192	2560
Core clock speed	576 MHz	1605 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1770 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	182 Watt	215 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	36.86	283.2
Floating-point processing power	0.4769 TFLOPS	9.062 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	64
TMUs	64	160
Tensor Cores	no data	320
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	40

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 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	267 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	896 MB	8 GB
Memory bus width	448 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	111.9 GB/s	448.0 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 Connectors	Dual Link DVIHDTV	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
G-SYNC support	-	+
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

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 3.16

RTX 2070 Super 47.25
+1395%

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 1218

RTX 2070 Super 18231
+1397%

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	8−9 −1575%	134 +1575%
1440p	5−6 −1520%	81 +1520%
4K	3−4 −1667%	53 +1667%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	56.13	3.72
1440p	89.80	6.16
4K	149.67	9.42

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	104 +0%	104 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	88 +0%	88 +0%
Battlefield 5	183 +0%	183 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	119 +0%	119 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	84 +0%	84 +0%
Far Cry 5	149 +0%	149 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	158 +0%	158 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	277 +0%	277 +0%
Hitman 3	116 +0%	116 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	279 +0%	279 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	122 +0%	122 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	203 +0%	203 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	229 +0%	229 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	172 +0%	172 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	74 +0%	74 +0%
Battlefield 5	172 +0%	172 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	120 +0%	120 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	78 +0%	78 +0%
Far Cry 5	120 +0%	120 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	120 +0%	120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	258 +0%	258 +0%
Hitman 3	113 +0%	113 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	270 +0%	270 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	92 +0%	92 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	198 +0%	198 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	215 +0%	215 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65 +0%	65 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	66 +0%	66 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	91 +0%	91 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	73 +0%	73 +0%
Far Cry 5	83 +0%	83 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	153 +0%	153 +0%
Hitman 3	104 +0%	104 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	156 +0%	156 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	167 +0%	167 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100 +0%	100 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	68 +0%	68 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

114

+0%

114

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	118 +0%	118 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	86 +0%	86 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	57 +0%	57 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	53 +0%	53 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	73 +0%	73 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	47 +0%	47 +0%
Far Cry 5	66 +0%	66 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	255 +0%	255 +0%
Hitman 3	71 +0%	71 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	118 +0%	118 +0%
Metro Exodus	91 +0%	91 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	123 +0%	123 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	215 +0%	215 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55 +0%	55 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	48 +0%	48 +0%
Hitman 3	42 +0%	42 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	129 +0%	129 +0%
Metro Exodus	78 +0%	78 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	68 +0%	68 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	39 +0%	39 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	32 +0%	32 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	44 +0%	44 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +0%	23 +0%
Far Cry 5	35 +0%	35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	84 +0%	84 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65 +0%	65 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	29 +0%	29 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

This is how GTX 260 and RTX 2070 Super compete in popular games:

RTX 2070 Super is 1575% faster in 1080p
RTX 2070 Super is 1520% faster in 1440p
RTX 2070 Super is 1667% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.16	47.25
Recency	16 June 2008	9 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount	896 MB	8 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	182 Watt	215 Watt

GTX 260 has 18.1% lower power consumption.

RTX 2070 Super, on the other hand, has a 1395.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 814.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 2070 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

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