GeForce GTX 260 vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

Place in the ranking	664	753
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.16
Power efficiency	20.65	1.20
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Coffee Lake GT3e	GT200
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	3 April 2018 (6 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 cores	384	192
Core clock speed	300 MHz	576 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+++	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	50.40	36.86
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs	6	28
TMUs	48	64

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).

Interface	Ring Bus	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	2x 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 type	System Shared	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	896 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	448 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	999 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	111.9 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 Connectors	Portable Device Dependent	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
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.

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	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.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 4.50
+42%

GTX 260 3.17

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1731
+42.2%

GTX 260 1217

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	19 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%
1440p	10 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
4K	15 +50%	10−12 −50%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	37.42
1440p	no data	64.14
4K	no data	44.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Elden Ring	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	18 +50%	12−14 −50%
Metro Exodus	11 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
Valorant	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Dota 2	17 +70%	10−11 −70%
Elden Ring	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Far Cry 5	16 +60%	10−11 −60%
Fortnite	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +70%	10−11 −70%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Metro Exodus	5 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	41 +51.9%	27−30 −51.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Valorant	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
World of Tanks	50 +42.9%	35−40 −42.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Dota 2	28 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Forza Horizon 4	15 +50%	10−11 −50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +44.4%	27−30 −44.4%
Valorant	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	4 +100%	2−3 −100%
Elden Ring	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	4 +100%	2−3 −100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
World of Tanks	30−35 +52.4%	21−24 −52.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Valorant	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Elden Ring	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
World of Tanks	12 +50%	8−9 −50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Dota 2	12 +50%	8−9 −50%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Fortnite	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Valorant	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 58% faster in 1080p
Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 43% faster in 1440p
Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 50% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.50	3.17
Recency	3 April 2018	16 June 2008
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	182 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has a 42% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1113.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 655 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 655 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.