Arc A380 vs GeForce GTX 260

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260 and Arc A380, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 260
2008
896 MB GDDR3, 182 Watt
2.71

Arc A380 outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 416% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking764343
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1442.83
Power efficiency1.1814.72
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGT200DG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date16 June 2008 (16 years ago)14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Arc A380 has 30493% better value for money than GTX 260.

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 cores1921024
Core clock speed576 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)182 Watt75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate36.86131.2
Floating-point processing power0.4769 TFLOPS4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs2832
TMUs6464
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mm222 mm
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pin1x 8-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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount896 MB6 GB
Memory bus width448 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed999 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth111.9 GB/s186.0 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsDual Link DVIHDTV1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.6
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-
DLSS-+

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.

GTX 260 2.71
Arc A380 13.98
+416%

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 1209
Arc A380 6247
+417%

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 HD9−10
−422%
47
+422%

Cost per frame, $

1080p49.89
−1474%
3.17
+1474%
  • Arc A380 has 1474% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 65
+0%
65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 183
+0%
183
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 41
+0%
41
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 48
+0%
48
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 122
+0%
122
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 33
+0%
33
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 76
+0%
76
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 72
+0%
72
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 32
+0%
32
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 57
+0%
57
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 29
+0%
29
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 72
+0%
72
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 40
+0%
40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 66
+0%
66
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+0%
26
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 57
+0%
57
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how GTX 260 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A380 is 422% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.71 13.98
Recency 16 June 2008 14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount 896 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 182 Watt 75 Watt

Arc A380 has a 415.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 585.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 983.3% more advanced lithography process, and 142.7% lower power consumption.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

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
GeForce GTX 260
Intel Arc A380
Arc A380

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


3.7 618 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 882 votes

Rate Arc A380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 260 or Arc A380, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.