GeForce 210 vs GTX 260M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260M with GeForce 210, including specs and performance data.
260M outperforms 210 by a whopping 176% 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 | 1181 | 1367 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 0.82 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | G92 | GT218S |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $29.49 |
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 | 112 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 589 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 30.5 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 30.80 | 4.160 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.308 TFLOPS | 0.03936 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 462 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 56 | 8 |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 32 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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.731" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | 2-way | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | 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 | GDDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 950 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | 8.0 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 Connectors | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI | DVIVGADisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| 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.
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.
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 | 29
+190%
| 10−12
−190%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.95 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 260M and GeForce 210 compete in popular games:
- GTX 260M is 190% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.91 | 0.33 |
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 30 Watt |
GTX 260M has a 176% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GeForce 210, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, a 63% more advanced lithography process, and 117% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 260M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 210 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 210 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.
