GeForce GTX 260 vs Radeon R9 390X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390X and GeForce GTX 260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 390X
2015
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
24.41
+675%

R9 390X outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 675% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking225749
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.990.14
Power efficiency6.191.21
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGrenadaGT200
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$429 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 390X has 7036% better value for money than GTX 260.

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 cores2816192
Core clock speedno data576 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 million1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate184.836.86
Floating-point processing power5.914 TFLOPS0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs6428
TMUs17664

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 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length275 mm267 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pin2x 6-pin
SLI options-+
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB896 MB
Memory bus width512 Bit448 Bit
Memory clock speed1050 MHz999 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 GB/s111.9 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortDual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor supportno data+
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
DisplayPort support+-
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-
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.

R9 390X 24.41
+675%
GTX 260 3.15

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.

R9 390X 9416
+675%
GTX 260 1215

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 HD95
+692%
12−14
−692%
4K48
+700%
6−7
−700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.5237.42
4K8.9474.83

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+800%
6−7
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+700%
10−11
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+733%
6−7
−733%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+700%
7−8
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+700%
8−9
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+700%
18−20
−700%
Hitman 3 45−50
+717%
6−7
−717%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+707%
14−16
−707%
Metro Exodus 80−85
+740%
10−11
−740%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+700%
8−9
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+730%
10−11
−730%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+750%
12−14
−750%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+800%
6−7
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+700%
10−11
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+733%
6−7
−733%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+700%
7−8
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+700%
8−9
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+700%
18−20
−700%
Hitman 3 45−50
+717%
6−7
−717%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+707%
14−16
−707%
Metro Exodus 80−85
+740%
10−11
−740%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+700%
8−9
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+730%
10−11
−730%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 108
+800%
12−14
−800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+750%
12−14
−750%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+800%
6−7
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+733%
6−7
−733%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+700%
7−8
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+700%
18−20
−700%
Hitman 3 45−50
+717%
6−7
−717%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+707%
14−16
−707%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+730%
10−11
−730%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
+720%
5−6
−720%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+750%
12−14
−750%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+700%
8−9
−700%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+820%
5−6
−820%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+678%
18−20
−678%
Hitman 3 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+733%
6−7
−733%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+820%
5−6
−820%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+783%
6−7
−783%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130−140
+769%
16−18
−769%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+720%
5−6
−720%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Hitman 3 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+688%
16−18
−688%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+867%
3−4
−867%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%

This is how R9 390X and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

  • R9 390X is 692% faster in 1080p
  • R9 390X is 700% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.41 3.15
Recency 18 June 2015 16 June 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 182 Watt

R9 390X has a 674.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 260, on the other hand, has 51.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 390X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.


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 R9 390X
Radeon R9 390X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GTX 260

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.


4.3 261 vote

Rate Radeon R9 390X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 600 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 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.