Radeon Picasso vs GeForce GTX 260 216 Rev. 2

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
260 Core 216 Rev. 2 260 Rev. 2 275 275 PhysX Edition 285 285 Mac Edition 285 X2 295 295 Single PCB
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
RX Vega 11 RX Vega 11 Efficient RX Vega 11 Embedded RX Vega 56 RX Vega 64 RX Vega 64 Limited Edition RX Vega 64 Liquid RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling RX Vega M Vega 8 Efficient Vega 8 Embedded Vega 11 Embedded

Contents

Share:
GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 216 Rev. 2
Picasso Picasso

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGT200BPicasso
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date27 November 2008 (17 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$299 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 cores216640
Core clock speed576 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1301 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)171 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate41.4752.04
Floating-point processing power0.5365 TFLOPS1.665 TFLOPS
ROPs288
TMUs7240
L2 Cache224 KBno data

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 x16IGP
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount896 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width448 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed999 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth111.9 GB/sno data

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA1.3-

Pros & cons summary

Chip lithography 55 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 171 Watt 10 Watt

Picasso has a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 1610% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2 and Radeon Picasso. We've got no test results to judge.

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 GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
AMD Radeon Picasso
Radeon Picasso
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
vs
R9 360 OEM Radeon R9 360 OEM
Picasso Radeon Picasso
vs
Zhongshan Subor Zhongshan Subor
GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
vs
HD 7970 GHz Edition Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition
GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
vs
GTX 260 216 GTX 260 Core 216
GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
vs
GTX 1060 Max-Q 3 GB GTX 1060 Max-Q 3 GB
GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
vs
GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB
GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
vs
GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
vs
GTX 1050 Max-Q GTX 1050 Max-Q
GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
vs
GTX 1050 3 GB Max-Q GTX 1050 3 GB Max-Q
GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
vs
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB
GTX 260 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
vs
GTX 285 X2 GTX 285 X2
9600 GSO 512 GeForce 9600 GSO 512
vs
R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
GTX 260 216 GTX 260 Core 216
vs
GTX 260 Rev. 2 GTX 260 Rev. 2

Community ratings

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

4.8 13 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 4 votes

Rate Radeon Picasso on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2 or Radeon Picasso, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.