Radeon R7 M260 vs ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2 and Radeon R7 M260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Mobility HD 3870 X2 outperforms R7 M260 by an impressive 67% 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 | 923 | 1077 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 1.47 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | M88 | Topaz |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2008 (17 years ago) | 11 June 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 320 ×2 | 384 |
| Compute units | no data | 6 |
| Core clock speed | 660 MHz | 940 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 10.56 ×2 | 23.52 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4224 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.7526 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 ×2 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB ×2 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 850 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s ×2 | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| Mantle | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 21−24
+61.5%
| 13
−61.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 61.46 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+21.2%
|
30−35
−21.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+48.3%
|
27−30
−48.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+35.3%
|
16−18
−35.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+100%
|
4
−100%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+21.2%
|
30−35
−21.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+35.3%
|
16−18
−35.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+167%
|
3
−167%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+21.2%
|
30−35
−21.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+61.5%
|
12−14
−61.5%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 and R7 M260 compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 is 62% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 surpassed R7 M260 in all 48 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.10 | 1.26 |
| Recency | 1 September 2008 | 11 June 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 has a 66.7% higher aggregate performance score.
R7 M260, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
