Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTX 260M

Place in the ranking	1115	307
Place by popularity	not in top-100	61
Power efficiency	1.04	83.89
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	G92	Hawx Point
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	3 March 2009 (15 years ago)	6 December 2023 (1 year 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	768
Core clock speed	550 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2700 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	30.80	129.6
Floating-point processing power	0.308 TFLOPS	8.294 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	462	no data
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	56	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

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	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	Up to 950 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	61 GB/s	no data
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	Portable Device Dependent
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
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

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.8
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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 0.94

Radeon 780M 17.45
+1756%

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

Radeon 780M 7026
+1754%

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

Radeon 780M 41622
+749%

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	27 −33.3%	36 +33.3%
1440p	1−2 −1800%	19 +1800%
4K	0−1	13

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −357%	32 +357%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −875%	39 +875%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −357%	32 +357%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −275%	15 +275%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −713%	65 +713%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −617%	40−45 +617%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −257%	25 +257%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −200%	12 +200%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −220%	32 +220%
Fortnite	3−4 −3167%	95−100 +3167%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −575%	54 +575%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −950%	120−130 +950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −617%	40−45 +617%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −850%	55−60 +850%
World of Tanks	21−24 −857%	220−230 +857%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −214%	22 +214%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −200%	12 +200%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −530%	60−65 +530%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −475%	46 +475%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −950%	120−130 +950%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	5−6 −2240%	110−120 +2240%
World of Tanks	5−6 −2400%	120−130 +2400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −367%	14−16 +367%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −860%	45−50 +860%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −400%	20 +400%
Valorant	6−7 −683%	45−50 +683%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 −40%	21 +40%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −40%	21 +40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	12−14
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −40%	21 +40%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +150%	4 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Dota 2	14−16 −107%	30−35 +107%
Far Cry 5	0−1	21−24
Valorant	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Dota 2	29 +0%	29 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	45 +0%	45 +0%
Metro Exodus	32 +0%	32 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Dota 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	18 +0%	18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	19 +0%	19 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	32 +0%	32 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

4K
High Preset

Metro Exodus

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Fortnite	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +0%	17 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

This is how GTX 260M and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

Radeon 780M is 33% faster in 1080p
Radeon 780M is 1800% faster in 1440p

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 260M is 150% faster.
in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 780M is 3167% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 260M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Radeon 780M is ahead in 34 tests (56%)
there's a draw in 26 tests (43%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.94	17.45
Recency	3 March 2009	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	65 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 1756.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 1525% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M 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.