GeForce GTX 260 vs 295
Aggregated performance score
260 outperforms 295 by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 712 | 708 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.16 | 0.36 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | GT200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 (15 years ago) | 16 June 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $500 | $449 |
| Current price | $200 (0.4x MSRP) | $49 (0.1x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 260 has 125% better value for money than GTX 295.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 240 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | 480 | 192 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 240 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 576 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 182 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 36.9 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 596.2 gflops | 476.9 gflops |
Size and 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin & 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | + |
Memory
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 896 MB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | 896 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 896 Bit | 448 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 999 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 223.8 GB/s | 111.9 GB/s |
| Memory interface width per GPU | 448 Bit | no data |
Video outputs and ports
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 | Two Dual Link DVIHDMI | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | S/PDIF |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
260 outperforms 295 by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
260 outperforms 295 by 1% in Passmark.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 3.11 | 3.16 |
| Recency | 8 January 2009 | 16 June 2008 |
| Cost | $500 | $449 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 896 MB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 182 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 295 and GeForce GTX 260.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
