Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs GeForce GTX 260M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260M SLI with Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.
260M SLI outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a significant 20% 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 | 814 | 872 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.57 | no data |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GTX | Kaveri Spectre |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 14 January 2014 (12 years ago) |
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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
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 | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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
+14.3%
| 14
−14.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+9.3%
|
40−45
−9.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55
−16%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+15.4%
|
24−27
−15.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9
+12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+9.3%
|
40−45
−9.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+15.4%
|
24−27
−15.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+9.3%
|
40−45
−9.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+21.1%
|
18−20
−21.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+31.8%
|
21−24
−31.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GTX 260M SLI and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:
- GTX 260M SLI is 14% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 260M SLI is 100% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 13% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 260M SLI performs better in 49 tests (96%)
- R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) performs better in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.05 | 2.54 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 14 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
GTX 260M SLI has a 20% higher aggregate performance score.
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 96% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 260M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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.
