GeForce GTX 960M vs Radeon R7 260X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260X with GeForce GTX 960M, including specs and performance data.

R7 260X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
8.27

GTX 960M outperforms R7 260X by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking504488
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.39no data
Power efficiency4.988.08
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameBonaireGM107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)13 March 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$139 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 cores896640
Core clock speedno data1096 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1176 MHz
Number of transistors2,080 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate61.6047.04
Floating-point processing power1.971 TFLOPS1.505 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs5640

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length170 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno data
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth104 GB/s80 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
VGA аnalog display supportno data+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno data+
HDMI++

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data
GameStream-+
GeForce ShadowPlay-+
GPU Boostno data2.0
GameWorks-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
BatteryBoost-+
Ansel-+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
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.

R7 260X 8.27
GTX 960M 8.75
+5.8%

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 260X 3190
GTX 960M 3374
+5.8%

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 260X 4380
+1.4%
GTX 960M 4318

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:

900p85−90
−11.8%
95
+11.8%
Full HD30−35
−13.3%
34
+13.3%
1440p14−16
−7.1%
15
+7.1%
4K12−14
−16.7%
14
+16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.63no data
1440p9.93no data
4K11.58no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+0%
25
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 84
+0%
84
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 31
+0%
31
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 48
+0%
48
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31
+0%
31
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 71
+0%
71
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 26
+0%
26
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73
+0%
73
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11
+0%
11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 25
+0%
25
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 15
+0%
15
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
+0%
8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10
+0%
10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45
+0%
45
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 15
+0%
15
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6
+0%
6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7
+0%
7
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 8
+0%
8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4
+0%
4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how R7 260X and GTX 960M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 960M is 12% faster in 900p
  • GTX 960M is 13% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 960M is 7% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 960M is 17% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.27 8.75
Recency 8 October 2013 13 March 2015
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 960M has a 5.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 53.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 260X and GeForce GTX 960M.

Be aware that Radeon R7 260X is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 960M 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 260X
Radeon R7 260X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GeForce GTX 960M

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.


3.8 391 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 1036 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960M 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.