GeForce GTS 360M vs GTX 260M

Place in the ranking	1109	934
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.05	3.10
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	G92	GT215
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	3 March 2009 (15 years ago)	7 January 2010 (14 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	112	96
Core clock speed	550 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	38 Watt
Texture fill rate	30.80	17.60
Floating-point processing power	0.308 TFLOPS	0.2757 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	462	413
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	56	32

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	large
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-II
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	2-way	+
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 950 MHz	Up to 2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	61 GB/s	57.6 GB/s
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	DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI	Single Link DVILVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPortVGA
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	2048x1536
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.

Power management

8.0

API compatibility

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	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 260M 0.98

GTS 360M 1.69
+72.4%

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 379

GTS 360M 653
+72.3%

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.

GTX 260M 4901

GTS 360M 5522
+12.7%

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:

900p	10−12 −80%	18 +80%
Full HD	29 +26.1%	23 −26.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −6.3%	30−35 +6.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −6.3%	30−35 +6.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −6.3%	30−35 +6.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−200%

3−4
+200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	1−2
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

1−2

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−50%

3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Watch Dogs: Legion

0−1

This is how GTX 260M and GTS 360M compete in popular games:

GTS 360M is 80% faster in 900p
GTX 260M is 26% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTS 360M is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTS 360M is ahead in 40 tests (85%)
there's a draw in 7 tests (15%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.98	1.69
Recency	3 March 2009	7 January 2010
Chip lithography	65 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	38 Watt

GTS 360M has a 72.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 71.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTS 360M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.