Arc A370M vs GeForce GTX 260

Place in the ranking	756	388
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.15	no data
Power efficiency	1.20	26.17
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GT200	DG2-128
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$449	no data

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	192	1024
Core clock speed	576 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1550 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	182 Watt	35 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	36.86	99.20
Floating-point processing power	0.4769 TFLOPS	3.174 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	32
TMUs	64	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8

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 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	no data
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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	896 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	448 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	111.9 GB/s	112.0 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	Dual Link DVIHDTV	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.6
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	-

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 260 3.02

Arc A370M 12.70
+321%

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 260 1216

Arc A370M 5115
+321%

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	9−10 −322%	38 +322%
1440p	4−5 −425%	21 +425%
4K	9−10 −344%	40 +344%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	49.89	no data
1440p	112.25	no data
4K	49.89	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	46 +0%	46 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +0%	19 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	74 +0%	74 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	13 +0%	13 +0%
Dota 2	42 +0%	42 +0%
Far Cry 5	24 +0%	24 +0%
Fortnite	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	62 +0%	62 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	29 +0%	29 +0%
Metro Exodus	13 +0%	13 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
World of Tanks	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +0%	11 +0%
Dota 2	66 +0%	66 +0%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +0%	53 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	11 +0%	11 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	11 +0%	11 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
World of Tanks	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	37 +0%	37 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	40 +0%	40 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Fortnite	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Valorant	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

This is how GTX 260 and Arc A370M compete in popular games:

Arc A370M is 322% faster in 1080p
Arc A370M is 425% faster in 1440p
Arc A370M is 344% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.02	12.70
Recency	16 June 2008	30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount	896 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	182 Watt	35 Watt

Arc A370M has a 320.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 983.3% more advanced lithography process, and 420% lower power consumption.

The Arc A370M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop card while Arc A370M is a notebook one.

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