GeForce GTX 260 vs Radeon RX Vega M GL

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL with GeForce GTX 260, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega M GL
2018
4 GB HBM2, 65 Watt
9.82
+211%

RX Vega M GL outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 211% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking452744
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.14
Power efficiency10.461.20
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code namePolaris 22GT200
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 February 2018 (6 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 cores1280192
Core clock speed931 MHz576 MHz
Boost clock speed1011 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,000 million1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate80.8836.86
Floating-point processing power2.588 TFLOPS0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs3228
TMUs8064

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 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 typeHBM2GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB896 MB
Memory bus width1024 Bit448 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz999 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 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 ConnectorsNo outputsDual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/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.

RX Vega M GL 9.82
+211%
GTX 260 3.16

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.

RX Vega M GL 3790
+211%
GTX 260 1218

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
High Preset

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%

4K
High Preset

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.82 3.16
Recency 1 February 2018 16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 896 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 182 Watt

RX Vega M GL has a 210.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 180% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega M GL is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL 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.

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 RX Vega M GL
Radeon RX Vega M GL
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.


3.2 22 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega M GL on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 597 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.