Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Radeon RX Vega 3 vs GeForce GTX 260
Aggregated performance score
GTX 260
2008
896MB GDDR3
3.16
+6.4%
RX Vega 3
2018
System Shared System Shared
2.97
GeForce GTX 260 outperforms Radeon RX Vega 3 by 6% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 708 | 738 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 64 |
| Value for money | 0.36 | 2.02 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Vega (2017−2021) |
| GPU code name | GT200 | Vega Raven Ridge |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 (15 years old) | 7 January 2018 (6 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
| Current price | $49 (0.1x MSRP) | $371 |
Value for money
RX Vega 3 has 461% better value for money than GTX 260.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | 192 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 4,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 36.9 billion/sec | 12.13 |
| Floating-point performance | 476.9 gflops | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 260 and Radeon RX Vega 3 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 448 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 111.9 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GeForce GTX 260 outperforms Radeon RX Vega 3 by 6% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 260 outperforms Radeon RX Vega 3 by 7% in Passmark.
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 | 12−14
+0%
| 12
+0%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 3.16 | 2.97 |
| Recency | 16 June 2008 | 7 January 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | System Shared |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 15 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 260 and Radeon RX Vega 3.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop card while Radeon RX Vega 3 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
