GeForce GTX 260 vs GTX 280M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 280M SLI with GeForce GTX 260, including specs and performance data.

GTX 280M SLI
2009
2 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
3.43
+8.9%

GTX 280M SLI outperforms GTX 260 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking724747
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.14
Power efficiency1.591.20
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameN10E-GTXGT200
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date2 March 2009 (15 years ago)16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

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 cores256192
Core clock speed585 MHz576 MHz
Number of transistors1508 Million1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rateno data36.86
Floating-point processing powerno data0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPsno data28
TMUsno data64

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
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 6-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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB896 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit448 Bit
Memory clock speed950 MHz999 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data111.9 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 Connectorsno dataDual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1011.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA++

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

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Battlefield 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+14.3%
35−40
−14.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Battlefield 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+14.3%
35−40
−14.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+14.3%
35−40
−14.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.43 3.15
Recency 2 March 2009 16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 896 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 182 Watt

GTX 280M SLI has a 8.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 18.2% more advanced lithography process, and 21.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 280M SLI and GeForce GTX 260.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 280M SLI is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 260 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 280M SLI
GeForce GTX 280M SLI
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GTX 260

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.


5 1 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 280M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 600 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 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.