Radeon R7 260X vs GeForce GTX 760

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 760 and Radeon R7 260X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 760
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 170 Watt
12.42
+50.2%

GTX 760 outperforms R7 260X by an impressive 50% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking397504
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.363.39
Power efficiency5.095.01
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameGK104Bonaire
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date25 June 2013 (11 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 $139

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 760 has 29% better value for money than R7 260X.

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 cores1152896
Core clock speed980 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1033 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million2,080 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)170 Watt115 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature97 °Cno data
Texture fill rate99.0761.60
Floating-point processing power2.378 TFLOPS1.971 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs9656

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 supportPCI Express 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mm170 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Minimum recommended system power500 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pin1 x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s104 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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
Eyefinity-+
HDMI++
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+
Blu Ray 3D+-
3D Gaming+-
3D Vision+-
PhysX+-
3D Vision Live+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)DirectX® 12
Shader Model5.16.3
OpenGL4.34.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.126-
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 760 12.42
+50.2%
R7 260X 8.27

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 760 4792
+50.2%
R7 260X 3190

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 760 5959
+36.1%
R7 260X 4380

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 HD69
+53.3%
45−50
−53.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.613.09

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+61.9%
21−24
−61.9%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+64%
50−55
−64%
Hitman 3 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+62.5%
40−45
−62.5%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+51.9%
27−30
−51.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+61.9%
21−24
−61.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+57.8%
45−50
−57.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+61.9%
21−24
−61.9%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+64%
50−55
−64%
Hitman 3 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+62.5%
40−45
−62.5%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+51.9%
27−30
−51.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+61.9%
21−24
−61.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+72.2%
18−20
−72.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+57.8%
45−50
−57.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+64%
50−55
−64%
Hitman 3 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+62.5%
40−45
−62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+72.2%
18−20
−72.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+57.8%
45−50
−57.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+61.9%
21−24
−61.9%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+52.5%
40−45
−52.5%
Hitman 3 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+56%
50−55
−56%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Hitman 3 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+68.6%
35−40
−68.6%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%

This is how GTX 760 and R7 260X compete in popular games:

  • GTX 760 is 53% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.42 8.27
Recency 25 June 2013 8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 170 Watt 115 Watt

GTX 760 has a 50.2% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 260X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 47.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 760 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260X in performance tests.


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 760
GeForce GTX 760
AMD Radeon R7 260X
Radeon R7 260X

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.


4 2079 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 760 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 391 vote

Rate Radeon R7 260X 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.