RTX A2000 vs GeForce GTX 260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260 with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 1030% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 747 | 137 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.14 | 85.49 |
| Power efficiency | 1.20 | 35.34 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GT200 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 10 August 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX A2000 has 60964% 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 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 36.86 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4769 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 28 | 48 |
| TMUs | 64 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
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 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 167 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| 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 | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 448 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 111.9 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |
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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
| 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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
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 | 8−9
−1100%
| 96
+1100%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−1367%
| 44
+1367%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1450%
| 31
+1450%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 56.13 | 4.68 |
| 1440p | 149.67 | 10.20 |
| 4K | 224.50 | 14.48 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.15 | 35.59 |
| Recency | 16 June 2008 | 10 August 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 70 Watt |
RTX A2000 has a 1029.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 585.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 712.5% more advanced lithography process, and 160% lower power consumption.
The RTX A2000 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 RTX A2000 is a workstation 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.
