GeForce GT 415M vs GTX 260

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260 with GeForce GT 415M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 260
2008
896 MB GDDR3, 182 Watt
3.16
+327%

GTX 260 outperforms GT 415M by a whopping 327% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7441152
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.14no data
Power efficiency1.204.27
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGT200GF108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date16 June 2008 (16 years ago)3 September 2010 (14 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 cores19248
Core clock speed576 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)182 Watt12 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate36.864.000
Floating-point processing power0.4769 TFLOPS0.096 TFLOPS
ROPs284
TMUs648

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount896 MB512 MB
Memory bus width448 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed999 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth111.9 GB/s25.6 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVIHDTVNo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
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 3.16
+327%
GT 415M 0.74

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 1218
+326%
GT 415M 286

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.16 0.74
Recency 16 June 2008 3 September 2010
Maximum RAM amount 896 MB 512 MB
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 182 Watt 12 Watt

GTX 260 has a 327% higher aggregate performance score, and a 75% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GT 415M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1416.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 415M is a notebook one.


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

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
NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M
GeForce GT 415M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 597 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 25 votes

Rate GeForce GT 415M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.