Radeon R7 M260 vs GeForce 9800M GTS SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9800M GTS SLI and Radeon R7 M260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

9800M GTS SLI
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 150 Watt
1.69
+42%

9800M GTS SLI outperforms R7 M260 by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9651072
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency0.91no data
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameNB9E-GTTopaz
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 July 2008 (17 years ago)11 June 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores128384
Compute unitsno data6
Core clock speed600 MHz940 MHz
Boost clock speedno data980 MHz
Number of transistors1508 Million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Wattno data
Texture fill rateno data23.52
Floating-point processing powerno data0.7526 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data24
L1 Cacheno data96 KB
L2 Cacheno data128 KB

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data14.4 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+
HD3D-+
PowerTune-+
DualGraphics-+
ZeroCore-+
Switchable graphics-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX10DirectX® 12
Shader Modelno data6.3
OpenGLno data4.3
OpenCLno data2.0
Mantle-+
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.

9800M GTS SLI 1.69
+42%
R7 M260 1.19

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.

9800M GTS SLI 5663
+4.4%
R7 M260 5425

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 HD18−20
+38.5%
13
−38.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data61.46

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Fortnite 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Valorant 35−40
+12.1%
30−35
−12.1%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+31%
27−30
−31%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Dota 2 20−22
+17.6%
16−18
−17.6%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Fortnite 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+100%
4
−100%
Valorant 35−40
+12.1%
30−35
−12.1%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Dota 2 20−22
+17.6%
16−18
−17.6%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+167%
3
−167%
Valorant 35−40
+12.1%
30−35
−12.1%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Valorant 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Valorant 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how 9800M GTS SLI and R7 M260 compete in popular games:

  • 9800M GTS SLI is 38% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the 9800M GTS SLI is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • 9800M GTS SLI performs better in 44 tests (92%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (8%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.69 1.19
Recency 15 July 2008 11 June 2014
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm

9800M GTS SLI has a 42% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 M260, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce 9800M GTS SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260 in performance tests.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTS SLI
GeForce 9800M GTS SLI
AMD Radeon R7 M260
Radeon R7 M260

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.


2.9 8 votes

Rate GeForce 9800M GTS SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 235 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 9800M GTS SLI or Radeon R7 M260, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.