Radeon RX 6750 XT vs GeForce GTX 260

Place in the ranking	747	47
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.14	51.73
Power efficiency	1.20	15.00
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GT200	Navi 22
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)	3 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$449	$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 6750 XT has 36850% 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	2150 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2600 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	17,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	182 Watt	250 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	36.86	416.0
Floating-point processing power	0.4769 TFLOPS	13.31 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	64
TMUs	64	160
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 4.0 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	12 GB
Memory bus width	448 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	111.9 GB/s	432.0 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	Dual Link DVIHDTV	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	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_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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

RX 6750 XT 53.95
+1613%

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

RX 6750 XT 20815
+1613%

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	9−10 −1733%	165 +1733%
1440p	5−6 −1660%	88 +1660%
4K	2−3 −2450%	51 +2450%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	49.89	3.33
1440p	89.80	6.24
4K	224.50	10.76

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

165

+0%

165

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Battlefield 5	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	127 +0%	127 +0%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	210−220 +0%	210−220 +0%
Hitman 3	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%
Metro Exodus	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	210−220 +0%	210−220 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Battlefield 5	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	109 +0%	109 +0%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	210−220 +0%	210−220 +0%
Hitman 3	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%
Metro Exodus	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	304 +0%	304 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	98 +0%	98 +0%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	210−220 +0%	210−220 +0%
Hitman 3	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	210 +0%	210 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	260 +0%	260 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	135 +0%	135 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	98 +0%	98 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

110−120

+0%

110−120

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60 +0%	60 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	260−270 +0%	260−270 +0%
Hitman 3	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	158 +0%	158 +0%
Metro Exodus	126 +0%	126 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	186 +0%	186 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	220−230 +0%	220−230 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

90−95

+0%

90−95

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Hitman 3	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	210−220 +0%	210−220 +0%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	79 +0%	79 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	26 +0%	26 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	99 +0%	99 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	41 +0%	41 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55

+0%

50−55

+0%

This is how GTX 260 and RX 6750 XT compete in popular games:

RX 6750 XT is 1733% faster in 1080p
RX 6750 XT is 1660% faster in 1440p
RX 6750 XT is 2450% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.15	53.95
Recency	16 June 2008	3 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount	896 MB	12 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	182 Watt	250 Watt

GTX 260 has 37.4% lower power consumption.

RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 1612.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1271.4% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6750 XT 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.