GeForce GTX 260 vs Radeon R9 Fury
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Fury and GeForce GTX 260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 Fury outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 687% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 226 | 755 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.17 | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 6.22 | 1.20 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GT200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 July 2015 (9 years ago) | 16 June 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R9 Fury has 5006% 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 cores | 3584 | 192 |
| Compute units | 56 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 576 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 182 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 224.0 | 36.86 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.168 TFLOPS | 0.4769 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 28 |
| TMUs | 224 | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 2x 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 type | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR3 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 896 MB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 448 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 999 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 89
+790%
| 10−12
−790%
|
| 1440p | 97
+708%
| 12−14
−708%
|
| 4K | 49
+717%
| 6−7
−717%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.17
+628%
| 44.90
−628%
|
| 1440p | 5.66
+561%
| 37.42
−561%
|
| 4K | 11.20
+568%
| 74.83
−568%
|
- R9 Fury has 628% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 Fury has 561% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R9 Fury has 568% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+744%
|
9−10
−744%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+808%
|
12−14
−808%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+725%
|
8−9
−725%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+713%
|
8−9
−713%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+800%
|
6−7
−800%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+733%
|
12−14
−733%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+744%
|
9−10
−744%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+760%
|
10−11
−760%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+756%
|
9−10
−756%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+793%
|
14−16
−793%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+808%
|
12−14
−808%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+725%
|
8−9
−725%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+750%
|
10−11
−750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+713%
|
8−9
−713%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+767%
|
18−20
−767%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+800%
|
6−7
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 76
+744%
|
9−10
−744%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+733%
|
12−14
−733%
|
| World of Tanks | 268
+793%
|
30−33
−793%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+744%
|
9−10
−744%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+713%
|
16−18
−713%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 101
+742%
|
12−14
−742%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+808%
|
12−14
−808%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+725%
|
8−9
−725%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+767%
|
18−20
−767%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+733%
|
12−14
−733%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+733%
|
21−24
−733%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| World of Tanks | 158
+778%
|
18−20
−778%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+700%
|
9−10
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+725%
|
8−9
−725%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+700%
|
5−6
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+714%
|
7−8
−714%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+738%
|
8−9
−738%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 47
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+744%
|
9−10
−744%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| World of Tanks | 109
+808%
|
12−14
−808%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+750%
|
12−14
−750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Fortnite | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
This is how R9 Fury and GTX 260 compete in popular games:
- R9 Fury is 790% faster in 1080p
- R9 Fury is 708% faster in 1440p
- R9 Fury is 717% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.86 | 3.16 |
| Recency | 10 July 2015 | 16 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 896 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 182 Watt |
R9 Fury has a 686.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 260, on the other hand, has 51.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Fury 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
