GeForce GTX 260 vs GTX 1650 SUPER
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and GeForce GTX 260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 740% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 216 | 761 |
| Place by popularity | 48 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 18.14 | 1.19 |
| 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
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. 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 and SDK 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.
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 | 71
+788%
| 8−9
−788%
|
| 1440p | 37
+825%
| 4−5
−825%
|
| 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
| Atomic Heart | 99
+890%
|
10−11
−890%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 61
+771%
|
7−8
−771%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+800%
|
7−8
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 73
+813%
|
8−9
−813%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 72
+800%
|
8−9
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 48
+860%
|
5−6
−860%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50
+900%
|
5−6
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+830%
|
10−11
−830%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+764%
|
14−16
−764%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+880%
|
10−11
−880%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75
+838%
|
8−9
−838%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+870%
|
10−11
−870%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+833%
|
18−20
−833%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 42
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 58
+867%
|
6−7
−867%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 39
+875%
|
4−5
−875%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+767%
|
30−33
−767%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| Dota 2 | 209
+771%
|
24−27
−771%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+760%
|
10−11
−760%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+764%
|
14−16
−764%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+880%
|
10−11
−880%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75
+838%
|
8−9
−838%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 103
+758%
|
12−14
−758%
|
| Metro Exodus | 51
+750%
|
6−7
−750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+870%
|
10−11
−870%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90
+800%
|
10−11
−800%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+833%
|
18−20
−833%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 57
+850%
|
6−7
−850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Dota 2 | 191
+810%
|
21−24
−810%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+778%
|
9−10
−778%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+880%
|
10−11
−880%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 51
+750%
|
6−7
−750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+870%
|
10−11
−870%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+900%
|
5−6
−900%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+833%
|
18−20
−833%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 120−130
+764%
|
14−16
−764%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+867%
|
18−20
−867%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+872%
|
18−20
−872%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+767%
|
24−27
−767%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 54
+800%
|
6−7
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+814%
|
7−8
−814%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 54
+800%
|
6−7
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+806%
|
16−18
−806%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 80
+789%
|
9−10
−789%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 39
+875%
|
4−5
−875%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and GTX 260 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 SUPER is 788% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 SUPER is 825% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 SUPER is 1050% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.29 | 3.13 |
| 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 739.9% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
