GeForce GTX 260 vs GTX 750 Ti

Place in the ranking	446	753
Place by popularity	30	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.93	0.16
Power efficiency	11.66	1.20
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GM107	GT200
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	18 February 2014 (10 years ago)	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 750 Ti has 2981% better value for money than GTX 260.

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	640	192
Core clock speed	1020 MHz	576 MHz
Boost clock speed	1085 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	60 Watt	182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	43.40	36.86
Floating-point processing power	1.389 TFLOPS	0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	28
TMUs	40	64

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).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	145 mm	267 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2x 6-pin
SLI options	-	+

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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	896 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	448 Bit
Memory clock speed	5.4 GB/s	999 MHz
Memory bandwidth	86.4 GB/s	111.9 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	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	4 displays	+
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu Ray 3D	+	-
3D Gaming	+	-
3D Vision	+	-
3D Vision Live	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	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 750 Ti 10.14
+220%

GTX 260 3.17

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 750 Ti 3899
+220%

GTX 260 1217

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

50
+257%

14−16

−257%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

2.98
+976%

32.07

−976%

GTX 750 Ti has 976% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Elden Ring	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +230%	10−11 −230%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +233%	12−14 −233%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +238%	8−9 −238%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +238%	8−9 −238%
Valorant	35−40 +280%	10−11 −280%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +230%	10−11 −230%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Dota 2	35−40 +260%	10−11 −260%
Elden Ring	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +242%	12−14 −242%
Fortnite	55−60 +228%	18−20 −228%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +233%	12−14 −233%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +260%	10−11 −260%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +238%	8−9 −238%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +225%	24−27 −225%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +238%	8−9 −238%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +244%	9−10 −244%
Valorant	35−40 +280%	10−11 −280%
World of Tanks	140−150 +224%	45−50 −224%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +230%	10−11 −230%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Dota 2	35−40 +260%	10−11 −260%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +242%	12−14 −242%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +233%	12−14 −233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +225%	24−27 −225%
Valorant	35−40 +280%	10−11 −280%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Elden Ring	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +243%	14−16 −243%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
World of Tanks	70−75 +248%	21−24 −248%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Valorant	24−27 +257%	7−8 −257%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Dota 2	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Elden Ring	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Counter-Strike 2	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Fortnite	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Valorant	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%

This is how GTX 750 Ti and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

GTX 750 Ti is 257% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.14	3.17
Recency	18 February 2014	16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	896 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	60 Watt	182 Watt

GTX 750 Ti has a 219.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 203.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 750 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

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