UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) vs GeForce GTX 260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) outperforms GTX 260 by a minimal 4% 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 | 738 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.14 | no data |
Power efficiency | 1.20 | no data |
Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Gen. 12 (2021−2023) |
GPU code name | GT200 | Rocket Lake Xe |
Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Release date | 16 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 30 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 32 |
Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 350 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | no data |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
Texture fill rate | 36.86 | no data |
Floating-point processing power | 0.4769 TFLOPS | no data |
ROPs | 28 | no data |
TMUs | 64 | no data |
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 | no data |
Length | 267 mm | no data |
Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
Width | 2-slot | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no 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 type | GDDR3 | no data |
Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | no data |
Memory bus width | 448 Bit | no data |
Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | no data |
Memory bandwidth | 111.9 GB/s | no data |
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 | no data |
Multi monitor support | + | no data |
HDMI | + | - |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
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.
Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12_1 |
Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
OpenGL | 2.1 | no data |
OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
Vulkan | N/A | - |
CUDA | + | - |
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 | 16−18
−6.3%
| 17
+6.3%
|
1440p | 5−6
−20%
| 6
+20%
|
4K | 8−9
−12.5%
| 9
+12.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | 28.06 | no data |
1440p | 89.80 | no data |
4K | 56.13 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how GTX 260 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is 6% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is 20% faster in 1440p
- UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is 13% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 3.15 | 3.28 |
Recency | 16 June 2008 | 30 March 2021 |
Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) has a 4.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 260 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake).
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.