ATI Radeon HD 4650 vs GeForce GTX 260M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260M with Radeon HD 4650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 260M outperforms ATI HD 4650 by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 1109 | 1196 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | 1.05 | 0.90 |
Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
GPU code name | G92 | RV730 |
Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
Release date | 3 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 10 September 2008 (16 years ago) |
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 | 112 | 320 |
Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 600 MHz |
Number of transistors | 754 million | 514 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 55 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 48 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 30.80 | 19.20 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.308 TFLOPS | 0.384 TFLOPS |
Gigaflops | 462 | no data |
ROPs | 16 | 8 |
TMUs | 56 | 32 |
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 size | large | no data |
Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 193 mm |
Width | no data | 1-slot |
SLI options | 2-way | - |
MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | Up to 950 MHz | 700 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | 22.4 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 | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
HDMI | + | - |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
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.
Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 10.1 (10_1) |
Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.1 |
OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
Vulkan | N/A | N/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.
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.
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 | 29
+61.1%
| 18−20
−61.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Hitman 3 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Hitman 3 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
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
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how GTX 260M and ATI HD 4650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 260M is 61% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 0.98 | 0.62 |
Recency | 3 March 2009 | 10 September 2008 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
Chip lithography | 65 nm | 55 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 48 Watt |
GTX 260M has a 58.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
ATI HD 4650, on the other hand, has a 18.2% more advanced lithography process, and 35.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 260M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4650 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 4650 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.