GeForce RTX 4070 vs GTX 260M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260M with GeForce RTX 4070, including specs and performance data.

GTX 260M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 65 Watt
0.92
RTX 4070
2023, $599
12 GB GDDR6X, 200 Watt
64.50
+6911%

RTX 4070 outperforms 260M by a whopping 6911% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking119232
Place by popularitynot in top-10077
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data62.73
Power efficiency1.0924.95
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameG92AD104
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 March 2009 (17 years ago)12 April 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores1125888
Core clock speed550 MHz1920 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2475 MHz
Number of transistors754 million35,800 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt200 Watt
Texture fill rate30.80455.4
Floating-point processing power0.308 TFLOPS29.15 TFLOPS
Gigaflops462no data
ROPs1664
TMUs56184
Tensor Coresno data184
Ray Tracing Coresno data46
L1 Cacheno data5.8 MB
L2 Cache64 KB36 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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data240 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 16-pin
SLI options2-way-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6X
Maximum RAM amount1 GB12 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 950 MHz1313 MHz
Memory bandwidth61 GB/s504.2 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no 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 Model4.06.7
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+8.9
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.

GTX 260M 0.92
RTX 4070 64.50
+6911%

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 260M 384
Samples: 333
RTX 4070 26871
+6898%
Samples: 20189

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.

GTX 260M 4901
RTX 4070 127764
+2507%

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 HD29
−583%
198
+583%
1440p1−2
−10300%
104
+10300%
4K0−163

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.03
1440pno data5.76
4Kno data9.51

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−10700%
216
+10700%
Palworld 4−5
−4450%
180−190
+4450%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−8600%
174
+8600%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−24800%
249
+24800%
Fortnite 1−2
−30100%
300−350
+30100%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−4167%
250−260
+4167%
Palworld 4−5
−4450%
180−190
+4450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1822%
170−180
+1822%
Valorant 30−33
−1127%
350−400
+1127%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
−1058%
270−280
+1058%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−7050%
143
+7050%
Dota 2 14−16
−6686%
950−1000
+6686%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−23300%
234
+23300%
Fortnite 1−2
−30100%
300−350
+30100%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−4167%
250−260
+4167%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−16900%
170
+16900%
Palworld 4−5
−4450%
180−190
+4450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1822%
170−180
+1822%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−4914%
351
+4914%
Valorant 30−33
−1127%
350−400
+1127%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−6300%
128
+6300%
Dota 2 14−16
−6686%
950−1000
+6686%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−21700%
218
+21700%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−4167%
250−260
+4167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1822%
170−180
+1822%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−2343%
171
+2343%
Valorant 30−33
−1127%
350−400
+1127%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−30100%
300−350
+30100%
Palworld 4−5
−4450%
180−190
+4450%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−6533%
190−200
+6533%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 5−6
−10100%
500−550
+10100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
−1650%
170−180
+1650%
Valorant 1−2
−45000%
450−500
+45000%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−10900%
220−230
+10900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−6900%
140
+6900%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−15000%
150−160
+15000%
Palworld 1−2
−11800%
110−120
+11800%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−873%
146
+873%
Valorant 7−8
−4457%
300−350
+4457%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−4700%
95−100
+4700%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−3850%
75−80
+3850%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 240
+0%
240
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 174
+0%
174
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
High

Grand Theft Auto V 137
+0%
137
+0%
Metro Exodus 104
+0%
104
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 81
+0%
81
+0%
Far Cry 5 173
+0%
173
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 65
+0%
65
+0%
Palworld 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 117
+0%
117
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 36
+0%
36
+0%
Far Cry 5 93
+0%
93
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

4K
Epic

Palworld 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

This is how GTX 260M and RTX 4070 compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4070 is 583% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4070 is 10300% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 4070 is 45000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX 4070 performs better in 39 tests (63%)
  • there's a draw in 23 tests (37%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.92 64.50
Recency 3 March 2009 12 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 200 Watt

GTX 260M has 208% lower power consumption.

RTX 4070, on the other hand, has a 6911% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 4070 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 4070 is a desktop one.

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.


3.3 16 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 12845 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4070 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 260M or GeForce RTX 4070, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.