GeForce RTX 2070 vs GTX 260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260 and GeForce RTX 2070, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 2070 outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 1224% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 753 | 94 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | 32.38 |
| Power efficiency | 1.20 | 16.51 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT200 | TU106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 17 October 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 2070 has 20138% 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 cores | 192 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 1410 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1620 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 10,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 36.86 | 233.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4769 TFLOPS | 7.465 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 28 | 64 |
| TMUs | 64 | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 36 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 229 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 448 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 111.9 GB/s | 448.0 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | 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_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
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.
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.
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
−1333%
| 129
+1333%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−1367%
| 88
+1367%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−1450%
| 62
+1450%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 49.89
−1190%
| 3.87
+1190%
|
| 1440p | 74.83
−1220%
| 5.67
+1220%
|
| 4K | 112.25
−1295%
| 8.05
+1295%
|
- RTX 2070 has 1190% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 2070 has 1220% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 2070 has 1295% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 208
+0%
|
208
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 160
+0%
|
160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 245
+0%
|
245
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Valorant | 184
+0%
|
184
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Valorant | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Valorant | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
This is how GTX 260 and RTX 2070 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2070 is 1333% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2070 is 1367% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2070 is 1450% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.17 | 41.96 |
| Recency | 16 June 2008 | 17 October 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 175 Watt |
RTX 2070 has a 1223.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 814.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 441.7% more advanced lithography process, and 4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
