Radeon RX Vega 9 vs GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 568 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 4.75 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Vega (2017−2021) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | Vega Raven Ridge |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 November 2008 (15 years ago) | 26 October 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | no data |
| Current price | no data | $302 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 216 | 576 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 171 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.47 | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 536.5 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2 and Radeon RX Vega 9 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no 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 type | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 448 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1998 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 111.9 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | no data |
| CUDA | 1.3 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 27 November 2008 | 26 October 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 171 Watt | 15 Watt |
We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2 and Radeon RX Vega 9. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2 is a desktop card while Radeon RX Vega 9 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
