CMP 30HX vs GeForce GTX 260M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260M with CMP 30HX, including specs and performance data.

GTX 260M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 65 Watt
0.86

CMP 30HX outperforms GTX 260M by a whopping 1266% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1164426
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data4.64
Power efficiency1.067.56
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG92TU116
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date3 March 2009 (16 years ago)25 February 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores1121408
Core clock speed550 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors754 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt125 Watt
Texture fill rate30.80157.1
Floating-point processing power0.308 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
Gigaflops462no data
ROPs1648
TMUs5688
L1 Cacheno data1.4 MB
L2 Cache64 KB1536 KB

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x4
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-pin
SLI options2-way-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 950 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth61 GB/s336.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsDisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMINo outputs
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.8
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+7.5

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.

GTX 260M 0.86
CMP 30HX 11.75
+1266%

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.

GTX 260M Samples: 331 380
CMP 30HX Samples: 14 5195
+1267%

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 HD29
−1107%
350−400
+1107%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.28

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Fortnite 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1233%
120−130
+1233%
Valorant 30−35
−1190%
400−450
+1190%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
−1204%
300−310
+1204%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Dota 2 14−16
−1257%
190−200
+1257%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Fortnite 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1233%
120−130
+1233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
Valorant 30−35
−1190%
400−450
+1190%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Dota 2 14−16
−1257%
190−200
+1257%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1233%
120−130
+1233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
Valorant 30−35
−1190%
400−450
+1190%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 5−6
−1200%
65−70
+1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1233%
120−130
+1233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−1233%
200−210
+1233%
Valorant 5−6
−1200%
65−70
+1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

This is how GTX 260M and CMP 30HX compete in popular games:

  • CMP 30HX is 1107% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.86 11.75
Recency 3 March 2009 25 February 2021
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 125 Watt

GTX 260M has 92.3% lower power consumption.

CMP 30HX, on the other hand, has a 1266.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.

The CMP 30HX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M is a notebook graphics card while CMP 30HX is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
GeForce GTX 260M
NVIDIA CMP 30HX
CMP 30HX

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 16 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 38 votes

Rate CMP 30HX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 260M or CMP 30HX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.