Radeon R7 260 vs HD 6970

Place in the ranking	537	531
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.06	3.74
Power efficiency	2.02	5.41
Architecture	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code name	Cayman	Bonaire
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	reference
Release date	14 December 2010 (14 years ago)	17 December 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$369	$109

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 260 has 253% better value for money than HD 6970.

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	1536	768
Boost clock speed	880 MHz	1100 MHz
Number of transistors	2,640 million	2,080 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	550 Watt	115 Watt
Texture fill rate	84.48	48.00
Floating-point processing power	2.703 TFLOPS	1.536 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	96	48

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).

Bus support	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	170 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	1 x 6-pin

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1375 MHz	1625 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	104 GB/s

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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	+
HDMI	+	+
DisplayPort support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 11	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	5.0	6.3
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0

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.

HD 6970 7.35

R7 260 7.50
+2%

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.

HD 6970 2833

R7 260 2891
+2%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

HD 6970 3470

R7 260 4380
+26.2%

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

12−14

+0%

12−14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −2%	50−55 +2%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +7.5%	40−45 −7.5%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +11.1%	18−20 −11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −1.9%	55−60 +1.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −2%	50−55 +2%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +7.5%	40−45 −7.5%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +11.1%	18−20 −11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −1.9%	55−60 +1.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −2%	50−55 +2%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +7.5%	40−45 −7.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −1.9%	55−60 +1.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22
+11.1%

18−20

−11.1%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+8.3%

12−14

−8.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8
+0%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.35	7.50
Recency	14 December 2010	17 December 2013
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	550 Watt	115 Watt

R7 260 has a 2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 378.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 6970 and Radeon R7 260.

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