GeForce GTX 260 vs GTX 1650 SUPER

Place in the ranking	214	756
Place by popularity	48	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.16
Power efficiency	18.21	1.20
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	TU116	GT200
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	22 November 2019 (5 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 cores	1280	192
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	576 MHz
Boost clock speed	1725 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	138.0	36.86
Floating-point processing power	4.416 TFLOPS	0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	28
TMUs	80	64

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 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	229 mm	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	2x 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 type	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	896 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	448 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	999 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	111.9 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready	+	no data
Multi Monitor	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	+

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 26.11
+737%

GTX 260 3.12

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 1650 SUPER 10165
+736%

GTX 260 1216

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	70 +775%	8−9 −775%
1440p	36 +800%	4−5 −800%
4K	23 +1050%	2−3 −1050%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	56.13
1440p	no data	112.25
4K	no data	224.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	61 +771%	7−8 −771%
Cyberpunk 2077	63 +800%	7−8 −800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +789%	9−10 −789%
Counter-Strike 2	48 +860%	5−6 −860%
Cyberpunk 2077	47 +840%	5−6 −840%
Forza Horizon 4	121 +764%	14−16 −764%
Forza Horizon 5	75 +838%	8−9 −838%
Metro Exodus	89 +790%	10−11 −790%
Red Dead Redemption 2	84 +740%	10−11 −740%
Valorant	115 +858%	12−14 −858%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +789%	9−10 −789%
Counter-Strike 2	39 +875%	4−5 −875%
Cyberpunk 2077	38 +850%	4−5 −850%
Dota 2	138 +763%	16−18 −763%
Far Cry 5	151 +739%	18−20 −739%
Fortnite	130−140 +829%	14−16 −829%
Forza Horizon 4	101 +742%	12−14 −742%
Forza Horizon 5	75 +838%	8−9 −838%
Grand Theft Auto V	103 +758%	12−14 −758%
Metro Exodus	61 +771%	7−8 −771%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +806%	18−20 −806%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30 +900%	3−4 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	85−90 +770%	10−11 −770%
Valorant	100−110 +783%	12−14 −783%
World of Tanks	260−270 +777%	30−33 −777%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +789%	9−10 −789%
Counter-Strike 2	35 +775%	4−5 −775%
Cyberpunk 2077	32 +967%	3−4 −967%
Dota 2	191 +810%	21−24 −810%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +778%	9−10 −778%
Forza Horizon 4	83 +822%	9−10 −822%
Forza Horizon 5	51 +750%	6−7 −750%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +806%	18−20 −806%
Valorant	100−110 +783%	12−14 −783%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	45 +800%	5−6 −800%
Grand Theft Auto V	45 +800%	5−6 −800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +872%	18−20 −872%
Red Dead Redemption 2	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
World of Tanks	170−180 +867%	18−20 −867%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +783%	6−7 −783%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +850%	2−3 −850%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +778%	9−10 −778%
Forza Horizon 4	60 +757%	7−8 −757%
Forza Horizon 5	54 +800%	6−7 −800%
Metro Exodus	55 +817%	6−7 −817%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +900%	4−5 −900%
Valorant	70−75 +800%	8−9 −800%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Dota 2	45 +800%	5−6 −800%
Grand Theft Auto V	45 +800%	5−6 −800%
Metro Exodus	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +800%	9−10 −800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45 +800%	5−6 −800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Counter-Strike 2	2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	5	0−1
Dota 2	80 +789%	9−10 −789%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Fortnite	30−35 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +900%	3−4 −900%
Forza Horizon 5	39 +875%	4−5 −875%
Valorant	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%

This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 SUPER is 775% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 SUPER is 800% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 SUPER is 1050% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	26.11	3.12
Recency	22 November 2019	16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	896 MB
Chip lithography	12 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	182 Watt

GTX 1650 SUPER has a 736.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 441.7% more advanced lithography process, and 82% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.