GeForce 8800 GTS 512 vs GTX 260M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260M with GeForce 8800 GTS 512, including specs and performance data.

GTX 260M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
0.98

8800 GTS 512 outperforms GTX 260M by an impressive 50% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking1113989
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.03
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameN10E-GTG92
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date2 March 2009 (15 years ago)11 December 2007 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores112128
CUDA cores112no data
Core clock speed550 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors754 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt135 Watt
Texture fill rate30.8041.60
Floating-point performance0.308 gflops0.416 gflops
Gigaflops462no 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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data254 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin
SLI options2-way-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno data

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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 950 MHz1640 MHz
Memory bandwidth61 GB/s52.48 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.04.0
OpenGL2.13.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 260M 0.98
8800 GTS 512 1.47
+50%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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 260M 379
8800 GTS 512 568
+49.9%

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 HD27
−48.1%
40−45
+48.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−40.6%
45−50
+40.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−40.6%
45−50
+40.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−40.6%
45−50
+40.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

This is how GTX 260M and 8800 GTS 512 compete in popular games:

  • 8800 GTS 512 is 48% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.98 1.47
Recency 2 March 2009 11 December 2007
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 135 Watt

GTX 260M has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 18.2% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.

8800 GTS 512, on the other hand, has a 50% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce 8800 GTS 512 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M is a notebook card while GeForce 8800 GTS 512 is a desktop 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 260M
GeForce GTX 260M
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
GeForce 8800 GTS 512

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.


3.4 14 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 123 votes

Rate GeForce 8800 GTS 512 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.