Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs GeForce GTX 260

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260 with Qualcomm Adreno 680, including specs and performance data.

GTX 260
2008
896 MB GDDR3, 182 Watt
3.17
+42.8%

GTX 260 outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking753860
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.16no data
Power efficiency1.2021.83
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)no data
GPU code nameGT200no data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date16 June 2008 (16 years ago)6 December 2018 (6 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 cores192no data
Core clock speed576 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)182 Watt7 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate36.86no data
Floating-point processing power0.4769 TFLOPSno data
ROPs28no data
TMUs64no data

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 x16no data
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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount896 MBno data
Memory bus width448 Bitno data
Memory clock speed999 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth111.9 GB/sno data
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 data
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
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
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 3.17
+42.8%
Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.22

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 1217
+42.5%
Qualcomm Adreno 680 854

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Elden Ring 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Elden Ring 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
World of Tanks 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 52 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.17 2.22
Recency 16 June 2008 6 December 2018
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 182 Watt 7 Watt

GTX 260 has a 42.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm Adreno 680, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 2500% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 680 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop card while Qualcomm Adreno 680 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
Qualcomm Adreno 680
Adreno 680

Other comparisons

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.


3.7 613 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 38 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 680 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.