Radeon RX 580 2048SP vs GeForce GTX 260M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260M with Radeon RX 580 2048SP, including specs and performance data.
RX 580 2048SP outperforms GTX 260M by a whopping 1916% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1128 | 293 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 43 |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 9.07 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (16 years ago) | 15 October 2018 (6 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 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1168 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1284 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.80 | 164.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.308 TFLOPS | 5.259 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 462 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 128 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 950 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | 224.0 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 | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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
−1797%
| 550−600
+1797%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1900%
|
160−170
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1835%
|
600−650
+1835%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1857%
|
450−500
+1857%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1900%
|
280−290
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1900%
|
160−170
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1835%
|
600−650
+1835%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1900%
|
280−290
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1900%
|
160−170
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1835%
|
600−650
+1835%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1900%
|
180−190
+1900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1900%
|
300−310
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
This is how GTX 260M and RX 580 2048SP compete in popular games:
- RX 580 2048SP is 1797% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.85 | 17.14 |
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 15 October 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTX 260M has 130.8% lower power consumption.
RX 580 2048SP, on the other hand, has a 1916.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 580 2048SP 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 Radeon RX 580 2048SP is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
