GeForce GTX 260M SLI vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GeForce GTX 260M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 260M SLI outperforms RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 789 | 760 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.92 | 1.50 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | NB9E-GTX |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2018 (7 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (16 years ago) |
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 | 224 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | 1508 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 40.80 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.306 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 950 MHz |
| 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 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | - |
| 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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 15
−6.7%
| 16−18
+6.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 19
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−2.2%
|
45−50
+2.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 32
−78.1%
|
55−60
+78.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 10
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−2.2%
|
45−50
+2.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−2.2%
|
45−50
+2.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GTX 260M SLI compete in popular games:
- GTX 260M SLI is 7% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 189% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 260M SLI is 80% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is ahead in 7 tests (12%)
- GTX 260M SLI is ahead in 31 test (53%)
- there's a draw in 20 tests (34%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.63 | 2.84 |
| Recency | 7 January 2018 | 2 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has an age advantage of 8 years, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
GTX 260M SLI, on the other hand, has a 8% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GeForce GTX 260M SLI.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
