Radeon R7 M260 vs Quadro FX 4800

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4800 with Radeon R7 M260, including specs and performance data.

FX 4800
2008
1536 MB GDDR3, 150 Watt
2.54
+95.4%

FX 4800 outperforms R7 M260 by an impressive 95% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8251030
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.040.02
Power efficiency1.18no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameGT200BTopaz
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)11 June 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,799 $799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 4800 has 100% better value for money than R7 M260.

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 cores192384
Compute unitsno data6
Core clock speed602 MHz940 MHz
Boost clock speedno data980 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Wattno data
Texture fill rate38.5323.52
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.7526 TFLOPS
ROPs248
TMUs6424

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1536 MB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s14.4 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+
HD3D-+
PowerTune-+
DualGraphics-+
ZeroCore-+
Switchable graphics-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)DirectX® 12
Shader Model4.06.3
OpenGL3.34.3
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A-
Mantle-+
CUDA1.3-

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.

FX 4800 2.54
+95.4%
R7 M260 1.30

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.

FX 4800 978
+94.8%
R7 M260 502

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 HD24−27
+84.6%
13
−84.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p74.9661.46

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
+0%
3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FX 4800 and R7 M260 compete in popular games:

  • FX 4800 is 85% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 47 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.54 1.30
Recency 11 November 2008 11 June 2014
Maximum RAM amount 1536 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm

FX 4800 has a 95.4% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 M260, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro FX 4800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4800 is a workstation card while Radeon R7 M260 is a notebook 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 Quadro FX 4800
Quadro FX 4800
AMD Radeon R7 M260
Radeon R7 M260

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.


4.2 62 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 224 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M260 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.