GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs Radeon R7 M260

Place in the ranking	1025	381
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.02	no data
Power efficiency	no data	12.22
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Topaz	GP107
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	11 June 2014 (10 years ago)	21 May 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$799	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 cores	384	768
Compute units	6	no data
Core clock speed	940 MHz	1392 MHz
Boost clock speed	980 MHz	1518 MHz
Number of transistors	1,550 million	3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	23.52	72.86
Floating-point processing power	0.7526 TFLOPS	2.332 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	24
TMUs	24	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCIe 3.0 x8	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	3 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1752 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	84.1 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 Connectors	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

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 compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.3	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	-	1.2.131
Mantle	+	-
CUDA	-	6.1

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 M260 1.30

GTX 1050 3 GB 13.23
+918%

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 M260 500

GTX 1050 3 GB 5105
+921%

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

−900%

130−140
+900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

61.46

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−900%

40−45
+900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Hitman 3	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −900%	140−150 +900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −900%	80−85 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −809%	300−310 +809%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Hitman 3	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −900%	140−150 +900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −900%	80−85 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −900%	110−120 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −809%	300−310 +809%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Hitman 3	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −900%	140−150 +900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −900%	80−85 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 −900%	30−33 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −809%	300−310 +809%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3
−800%

18−20

+800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Hitman 3	7−8 −900%	70−75 +900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−900%

40−45
+900%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−900%

30−33
+900%

This is how R7 M260 and GTX 1050 3 GB compete in popular games:

GTX 1050 3 GB is 900% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.30	13.23
Recency	11 June 2014	21 May 2018
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	3 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm

R7 M260 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1050 3 GB, on the other hand, has a 917.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 M260 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB is a desktop one.

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