GeForce GTX 260M SLI vs Quadro RTX 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 5000 Quadro RTX 6000 Quadro RTX 6000 Passive Quadro RTX 8000 Quadro RTX 8000 Passive Quadro RTX 8100 Quadro RTX 8200
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 260M GTX 260M SLI GTX 280M GTX 280M SLI GTX 285M GTX 285M SLI

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 with GeForce GTX 260M SLI, including specs and performance data.

RTX 4000
2018
8 GB GDDR6, 160 Watt
34.05
+1099%

RTX 4000 outperforms GTX 260M SLI by a whopping 1099% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

RTX 4000 RTX 4000
GTX 260M SLI GTX 260M SLI

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking123758
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation37.50no data
Power efficiency16.921.51
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code nameTU104NB9E-GTX
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 November 2018 (6 years ago)2 March 2009 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores2304224
Core clock speed1005 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed1545 MHzno data
Number of transistors13,600 million1508 Million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate222.5no data
Floating-point processing power7.119 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs144no data
Tensor Cores288no data
Ray Tracing Cores36no data

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 datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR6GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz950 MHz
Memory bandwidth416.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-Cno data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)10
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.131-
CUDA7.5+
DLSS+-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 34.05 2.84
Recency 13 November 2018 2 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 150 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 1098.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 260M SLI, on the other hand, has 6.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 260M SLI is a notebook one.

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 RTX 4000
Quadro RTX 4000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLI
GeForce GTX 260M SLI
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
Quadro GP100 Quadro GP100
GTX 260M SLI GeForce GTX 260M SLI
vs
GeForce 930MX GeForce 930MX
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
Pro W6600 Radeon Pro W6600
GTX 1660 Ti GTX 1660 Ti
vs
Tesla V100 SXM2 Tesla V100 SXM2
GTX 1660 Ti GTX 1660 Ti
vs
Tesla V100 PCIe 16 GB Tesla V100 PCIe 16 GB
GTX 1660 Ti GTX 1660 Ti
vs
HD Graphics P3000 HD Graphics P3000
GTX 1660 Ti GTX 1660 Ti
vs
CMP 70HX CMP 70HX
Instinct MI50 Instinct MI50
vs
GeForce MX550 MX550
RTX 4000 RTX 4000
vs
R7 350X OEM R7 350X OEM
RTX 4000 RTX 4000
vs
RX Vega 10 RX Vega 10
Pro 580X Pro 580X
vs
RTX 3050 Mobile RTX 3050 Mobile
Tesla K80 Tesla K80
vs
FirePro S9000 S9000
P2000 Mobile P2000 Mobile
vs
GTX 960 OEM GTX 960 OEM

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.5 498 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 7 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX 4000 or GeForce GTX 260M SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.