GeForce GTX 1630 vs Radeon R7 M260

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 M260 with GeForce GTX 1630, including specs and performance data.

R7 M260
2014
4 GB DDR3
1.30

GTX 1630 outperforms R7 M260 by a whopping 895% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1030388
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Power efficiencyno data12.02
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTopazTU117
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date11 June 2014 (10 years ago)28 June 2022 (2 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 cores384512
Compute units6no data
Core clock speed940 MHz1740 MHz
Boost clock speed980 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors1,550 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data75 Watt
Texture fill rate23.5257.12
Floating-point processing power0.7526 TFLOPS1.828 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs2432

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x8no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x8
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s96 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.6
OpenGL4.34.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan-1.3
Mantle+-
CUDA-7.5

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 1630 12.93
+895%

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 502
GTX 1630 4987
+893%

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 HD13
−823%
120−130
+823%

Cost per frame, $

1080p61.46no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Hitman 3 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−829%
130−140
+829%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−809%
300−310
+809%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Hitman 3 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−829%
130−140
+829%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−809%
100−105
+809%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−809%
300−310
+809%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Hitman 3 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−829%
130−140
+829%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
−800%
27−30
+800%
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
−800%
9−10
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Hitman 3 7−8
−829%
65−70
+829%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
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
−800%
27−30
+800%

This is how R7 M260 and GTX 1630 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1630 is 823% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.30 12.93
Recency 11 June 2014 28 June 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm

GTX 1630 has a 894.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1630 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 1630 is a desktop 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 M260
Radeon R7 M260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630
GeForce GTX 1630

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.


3.1 224 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 1256 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1630 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.