GeForce GTX 260 vs Radeon R7 M445

Place in the ranking	831	744
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.14
Power efficiency	6.76	1.20
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Meso	GT200
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	15 May 2016 (8 years ago)	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

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	320	192
Core clock speed	780 MHz	576 MHz
Boost clock speed	920 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,550 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15-25 Watt	182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	18.40	36.86
Floating-point processing power	0.5888 TFLOPS	0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	28
TMUs	20	64

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	2x 6-pin
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 type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	896 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	448 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	999 MHz
Memory bandwidth	32 GB/s	111.9 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	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.0	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
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 M445 2.44

GTX 260 3.16
+29.5%

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 M445 943

GTX 260 1218
+29.2%

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

−23.1%

16−18
+23.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

28.06

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−20%

6−7
+20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Hitman 3	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −20%	24−27 +20%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −21.6%	45−50 +21.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Hitman 3	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −20%	24−27 +20%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −21.6%	45−50 +21.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Hitman 3	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −20%	24−27 +20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 −20%	6−7 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −21.6%	45−50 +21.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−16.7%

7−8
+16.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−20%

6−7
+20%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4
+0%

This is how R7 M445 and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

GTX 260 is 23% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.44	3.16
Recency	15 May 2016	16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	896 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	182 Watt

R7 M445 has an age advantage of 7 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 1113.3% lower power consumption.

GTX 260, on the other hand, has a 29.5% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GTX 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M445 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 M445 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop one.

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