GeForce GTX 260M SLI vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GTX 260M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms GTX 260M SLI by an impressive 83% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 595 | 751 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.73 | 1.51 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Vega Renoir | NB9E-GTX |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (15 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 | 400 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1508 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
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 |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 950 MHz |
| Shared memory | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 10 |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 21
+110%
| 10−12
−110%
|
| 1440p | 23
+91.7%
| 12−14
−91.7%
|
| 4K | 18
+100%
| 9−10
−100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 19
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 15
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+100%
|
10−12
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Fortnite | 33
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Valorant | 97
+102%
|
45−50
−102%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 56
−3.6%
|
55−60
+3.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Fortnite | 22
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 73
+52.1%
|
45−50
−52.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 19
−153%
|
45−50
+153%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+91.3%
|
21−24
−91.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+56.5%
|
21−24
−56.5%
|
| Valorant | 49
+58.1%
|
30−35
−58.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Valorant | 22
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GTX 260M SLI compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 110% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 92% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 400% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 260M SLI is 153% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 57 tests (93%)
- GTX 260M SLI is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.05 | 3.30 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 2 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 83.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 685.7% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M SLI in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
