GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs GTX 260M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260M SLI with GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 8 GB outperforms 260M SLI by a whopping 889% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 806 | 210 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 56.68 |
| Power efficiency | 1.56 | 17.82 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GTX | GA106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (16 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 224 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1552 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1777 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 142.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 9.098 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−817%
|
55−60
+817%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−817%
|
55−60
+817%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−844%
|
85−90
+844%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−841%
|
160−170
+841%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−838%
|
75−80
+838%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−829%
|
130−140
+829%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−857%
|
450−500
+857%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−848%
|
550−600
+848%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−817%
|
55−60
+817%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−867%
|
290−300
+867%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−844%
|
85−90
+844%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−841%
|
160−170
+841%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−838%
|
75−80
+838%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−838%
|
75−80
+838%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−800%
|
45−50
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−829%
|
130−140
+829%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−850%
|
95−100
+850%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−857%
|
450−500
+857%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−817%
|
55−60
+817%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−867%
|
290−300
+867%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
−809%
|
100−105
+809%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−844%
|
85−90
+844%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−829%
|
130−140
+829%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−850%
|
95−100
+850%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−857%
|
450−500
+857%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−841%
|
160−170
+841%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−829%
|
65−70
+829%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−857%
|
220−230
+857%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−863%
|
260−270
+863%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−867%
|
290−300
+867%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−817%
|
55−60
+817%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−800%
|
45−50
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−829%
|
65−70
+829%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−800%
|
45−50
+800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−817%
|
55−60
+817%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−833%
|
140−150
+833%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−844%
|
85−90
+844%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.01 | 29.77 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 4 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 130 Watt |
RTX 3050 8 GB has a 889% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 587.5% more advanced lithography process, and 15.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M SLI is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
