UHD Graphics 605 vs Radeon R7 260

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260 with UHD Graphics 605, including specs and performance data.

R7 260
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
7.52
+537%

R7 260 outperforms UHD Graphics 605 by a whopping 537% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5321071
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.71no data
Power efficiency5.4516.25
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameBonaireGemini Lake GT1.5
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date17 December 2013 (11 years ago)11 December 2017 (7 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 cores768144
Core clock speedno data200 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHz750 MHz
Number of transistors2,080 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt5 Watt
Texture fill rate48.0013.50
Floating-point processing power1.536 TFLOPS0.216 TFLOPS
ROPs163
TMUs4818

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 x16Ring Bus
Length170 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1625 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth104 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
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
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan-1.3

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 7.52
+537%
UHD Graphics 605 1.18

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
+538%
UHD Graphics 605 453

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.

R7 260 4380
+865%
UHD Graphics 605 454

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 HD70−75
+536%
11
−536%
1440p150−160
+525%
24
−525%
4K95−100
+533%
15
−533%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.56no data
1440p0.73no data
4K1.15no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 2
+0%
2
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 5
+0%
5
+0%
Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5
+0%
5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how R7 260 and UHD Graphics 605 compete in popular games:

  • R7 260 is 536% faster in 1080p
  • R7 260 is 525% faster in 1440p
  • R7 260 is 533% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 41 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.52 1.18
Recency 17 December 2013 11 December 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 5 Watt

R7 260 has a 537.3% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics 605, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 2200% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 605 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 260 is a desktop card while UHD Graphics 605 is a notebook one.


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
Intel UHD Graphics 605
UHD Graphics 605

Other comparisons

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
2.7 830 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 605 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.