Radeon RX 6750 XT vs GeForce GTX 260

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260 and Radeon RX 6750 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 260
2008, $449
896 MB GDDR3, 182 Watt
2.86
RX 6750 XT
2022, $549
12 GB GDDR6, 250 Watt
49.47
+1630%

6750 XT outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 1630% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking84569
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1445.85
Power efficiency1.2215.42
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGT200Navi 22
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date16 June 2008 (18 years ago)3 March 2022 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 $549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 6750 XT has 32650% 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 cores1922560
Core clock speed576 MHz2150 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2600 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million17,200 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)182 Watt250 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate36.86416.0
Floating-point processing power0.4769 TFLOPS13.31 TFLOPS
ROPs2864
TMUs64160
Ray Tracing Coresno data40
L0 Cacheno data640 KB
L1 Cacheno data512 KB
L2 Cache224 KB3 MB
L3 Cacheno data96 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount896 MB12 GB
Memory bus width448 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed999 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth111.9 GB/s432.0 GB/s
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 ConnectorsDual Link DVIHDTV1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

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.

GTX 260 2.86
RX 6750 XT 49.47
+1630%

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.

GTX 260 1198
Samples: 3084
RX 6750 XT 20695
+1627%
Samples: 5794

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 HD9−10
−94.5%
163
1440p5−688
+1660%
4K2−350
+2400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p49.893.37
+93.2%
1440p89.806.24
+93.1%
4K224.5010.98
+95.1%
  • RX 6750 XT has 93% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 6750 XT has 93% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 6750 XT has 95% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 245 245
Counter-Strike 2 353 353
Cyberpunk 2077 165 165

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 176 176
Battlefield 5 150−160 150−160
Counter-Strike 2 346 346
Cyberpunk 2077 127 127
Far Cry 5 178 178
Fortnite 210−220 210−220
Forza Horizon 4 190−200 190−200
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 280−290 280−290

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 104 104
Battlefield 5 150−160 150−160
Counter-Strike 2 220 220
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 109 109
Dota 2 154 154
Far Cry 5 170 170
Far Cry 6 130 130
Fortnite 210−220 210−220
Forza Horizon 4 190−200 190−200
Grand Theft Auto V 162 162
Metro Exodus 127 127
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 245 245
Valorant 280−290 280−290

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 150−160 150−160
Cyberpunk 2077 98 98
Dota 2 131 131
Far Cry 5 158 158
Forza Horizon 4 190−200 190−200
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 135 135
Valorant 280−290 280−290

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 210−220 210−220

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 126 126
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 350−400 350−400
Far Cry 6 101 101
Grand Theft Auto V 106 106
Metro Exodus 76 76
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 300−350 300−350

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130 120−130
Cyberpunk 2077 60 60
Far Cry 5 141 141
Forza Horizon 4 150−160 150−160
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110 100−110

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 130−140 130−140

4K
High

Atomic Heart 40−45 40−45
Counter-Strike 2 33 33
Far Cry 6 55 55
Grand Theft Auto V 104 104
Metro Exodus 47 47
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 79 79
Valorant 290−300 290−300

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85 80−85
Counter-Strike 2 60−65 60−65
Cyberpunk 2077 26 26
Dota 2 101 101
Far Cry 5 78 78
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 100−110
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85 80−85

4K
Epic

Fortnite 70−75 70−75

This is how GTX 260 and RX 6750 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6750 XT is 1711% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6750 XT is 1660% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6750 XT is 2400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.86 49.47
Recency 16 June 2008 3 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 896 MB 12 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 182 Watt 250 Watt

GTX 260 has 27% lower power consumption.

RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 1630% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1271% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 89% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6750 XT 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 711 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 3357 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6750 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 260 or Radeon RX 6750 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.