GeForce GTX 260 vs GTX 980M

Place in the ranking	286	744
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.14
Power efficiency	13.21	1.20
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GM204	GT200
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	7 October 2014 (10 years ago)	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1536	192
Core clock speed	1038 MHz	576 MHz
Boost clock speed	1127 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,200 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	unknown	182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	51.84	36.86
Floating-point processing power	1.659 TFLOPS	0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	28
TMUs	96	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	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	8 GB	896 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	448 Bit
Memory clock speed	2500 MHz	999 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 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	No outputs	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
VGA аnalog display support	+	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
G-SYNC support	+	-
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

GameStream	+	-
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	-
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
BatteryBoost	+	-
Ansel	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	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 980M 19.07
+503%

GTX 260 3.16

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 980M 7357
+504%

GTX 260 1218

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:

900p	173 +541%	27−30 −541%
Full HD	69 +590%	10−12 −590%
1440p	31 +520%	5−6 −520%
4K	27 +575%	4−5 −575%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	44.90
1440p	no data	89.80
4K	no data	112.25

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−33

+650%

4−5
−650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	51 +538%	8−9 −538%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +540%	5−6 −540%
Battlefield 5	67 +570%	10−11 −570%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Far Cry 5	62 +520%	10−11 −520%
Far Cry New Dawn	59 +556%	9−10 −556%
Forza Horizon 4	196 +553%	30−33 −553%
Hitman 3	35−40 +517%	6−7 −517%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +557%	14−16 −557%
Metro Exodus	65 +550%	10−11 −550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +538%	8−9 −538%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100 +525%	16−18 −525%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +536%	14−16 −536%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	68 +580%	10−11 −580%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +540%	5−6 −540%
Battlefield 5	57 +533%	9−10 −533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Far Cry 5	52 +550%	8−9 −550%
Far Cry New Dawn	47 +571%	7−8 −571%
Forza Horizon 4	191 +537%	30−33 −537%
Hitman 3	35−40 +517%	6−7 −517%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +557%	14−16 −557%
Metro Exodus	55 +511%	9−10 −511%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +538%	8−9 −538%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +530%	10−11 −530%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	121 +572%	18−20 −572%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +536%	14−16 −536%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	26 +550%	4−5 −550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +540%	5−6 −540%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Far Cry 5	38 +533%	6−7 −533%
Forza Horizon 4	47 +571%	7−8 −571%
Hitman 3	35−40 +517%	6−7 −517%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +557%	14−16 −557%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +530%	10−11 −530%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	33 +560%	5−6 −560%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +536%	14−16 −536%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55

+538%

8−9
−538%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	33 +560%	5−6 −560%
Far Cry New Dawn	32 +540%	5−6 −540%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20 +567%	3−4 −567%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Far Cry 5	24 +700%	3−4 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	134 +538%	21−24 −538%
Hitman 3	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +550%	6−7 −550%
Metro Exodus	38 +533%	6−7 −533%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +528%	18−20 −528%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

+520%

5−6
−520%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16 +700%	2−3 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Hitman 3	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 +513%	16−18 −513%
Metro Exodus	18 +800%	2−3 −800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 +633%	3−4 −633%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Far Cry 5	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	26 +550%	4−5 −550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+750%

2−3
−750%

This is how GTX 980M and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

GTX 980M is 541% faster in 900p
GTX 980M is 590% faster in 1080p
GTX 980M is 520% faster in 1440p
GTX 980M is 575% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	19.07	3.16
Recency	7 October 2014	16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	896 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm

GTX 980M has a 503.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 814.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 980M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop one.

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