GeForce 6200 TurboCache vs Radeon R7 260

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260 and GeForce 6200 TurboCache, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 260
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
7.50
+5257%

R7 260 outperforms 6200 TurboCache by a whopping 5257% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5311425
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.74no data
Power efficiency5.41no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameBonaireNV44 B2
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date17 December 2013 (11 years ago)15 December 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 no data

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 cores768no data
Core clock speedno data350 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,080 million75 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Wattno data
Texture fill rate48.001.400
Floating-point processing power1.536 TFLOPSno data
ROPs162
TMUs484

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16AGP 4x
Length170 mm165 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5DDR
Maximum RAM amount2 GB64 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz250 MHz
Memory bandwidth104 GB/s4 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 129.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.33.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan-N/A

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.

R7 260 7.50
+5257%
6200 TurboCache 0.14

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.

R7 260 2891
+5355%
6200 TurboCache 53

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.50 0.14
Recency 17 December 2013 15 December 2004
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 110 nm

R7 260 has a 5257.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 6200 TurboCache in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon R7 260
Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce 6200 TurboCache
GeForce 6200 TurboCache

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.


3.5 50 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 59 votes

Rate GeForce 6200 TurboCache 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.