GeForce RTX 5080 vs GTX 260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260 and GeForce RTX 5080, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 5080 outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 2869% 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 | 835 | 4 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 76 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.14 | 49.08 |
| Power efficiency | 1.22 | 18.38 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | GT200 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 (18 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 5080 has 34957% better value for money than GTX 260.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 360 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 36.86 | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4769 TFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 28 | 112 |
| TMUs | 64 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 10.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 64 MB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 304 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 16-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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 448 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 111.9 GB/s | 960.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Dual Link DVIHDTV | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | + | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 6−7
−3217%
| 199
+3217%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−3600%
| 148
+3600%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−3267%
| 101
+3267%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 74.83
−1391%
| 5.02
+1391%
|
| 1440p | 112.25
−1563%
| 6.75
+1563%
|
| 4K | 149.67
−1413%
| 9.89
+1413%
|
- RTX 5080 has 1391% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 5080 has 1563% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 5080 has 1413% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Palworld | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Palworld | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Palworld | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 279
+0%
|
279
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Palworld | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 232
+0%
|
232
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Palworld | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Palworld | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 232
+0%
|
232
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Palworld | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
This is how GTX 260 and RTX 5080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 3217% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5080 is 3600% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5080 is 3267% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.88 | 85.51 |
| Recency | 16 June 2008 | 30 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 360 Watt |
GTX 260 has 98% lower power consumption.
RTX 5080, on the other hand, has a 2869% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 1729% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 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.
