Radeon Graphics 384SP vs GeForce GTX 260M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1109not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.05no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG92Cezanne
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 March 2009 (15 years ago)13 April 2021 (3 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 cores112384
Core clock speed550 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1700 MHz
Number of transistors754 million9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate30.8040.80
Floating-point processing power0.308 TFLOPS1.306 TFLOPS
Gigaflops462no data
ROPs168
TMUs5624

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 x16IGP
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedUp to 950 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth61 GB/sno 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 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 compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.7 (6.4)
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 March 2009 13 April 2021
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 45 Watt

Graphics 384SP has an age advantage of 12 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 44.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 260M and Radeon Graphics 384SP. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M is a notebook card while Radeon Graphics 384SP is a desktop one.


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

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
AMD Radeon Graphics 384SP
Radeon Graphics 384SP

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.2 15 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 20 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 384SP on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.