GeForce GTX 260M vs GTX 560M

Place in the ranking	743	1109
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.04	1.05
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GF116	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	30 May 2011 (13 years ago)	3 March 2009 (15 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	192	112
Core clock speed	775 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	1,170 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.80	30.80
Floating-point processing power	0.5952 TFLOPS	0.308 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	462
ROPs	24	16
TMUs	32	56

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	large
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data
SLI options	2-way	2-way
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	1 GB
Memory bus width	Up to 192 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	Up to 950 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 60 GB/s	61 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	No outputs	DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray	+	-
3D Gaming	+	-
Optimus	+	-
Power management	no data	8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
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.

GTX 560M 3.27
+234%

GTX 260M 0.98

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 560M 1260
+232%

GTX 260M 379

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 560M 9300
+89.8%

GTX 260M 4901

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:

900p	31 +244%	9−10 −244%
Full HD	38 +31%	29 −31%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+100%

3−4

−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +84.6%	12−14 −84.6%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +25%	30−35 −25%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +84.6%	12−14 −84.6%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +25%	30−35 −25%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +84.6%	12−14 −84.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +25%	30−35 −25%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+700%

1−2

−700%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+133%

3−4

−133%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

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
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
+100%

2−3

−100%

This is how GTX 560M and GTX 260M compete in popular games:

GTX 560M is 244% faster in 900p
GTX 560M is 31% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 560M is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GTX 560M surpassed GTX 260M in all 43 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.27	0.98
Recency	30 May 2011	3 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	1 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	65 Watt

GTX 560M has a 233.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 260M, on the other hand, has 15.4% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 560M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.