Radeon R7 260X vs Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 2.1 TFLOPS Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS
VS
Radeon HD 7790 Radeon HD 8770 OEM Radeon R7 260 Radeon R7 260X Radeon R9 260 OEM

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS with Radeon R7 260X, including specs and performance data.

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS
30 Watt
10.61
+27.7%

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS outperforms R7 260X by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS
R7 260X R7 260X

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking442516
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.61
Power efficiency24.274.96
Architectureno dataGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameno dataBonaire
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release dateno data8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$139

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 cores1536896
Boost clock speed1250 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistorsno data2,080 million
Manufacturing process technology4 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt115 Watt
Texture fill rateno data61.60
Floating-point processing powerno data1.971 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data56

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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data170 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1 x 6-pin

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 typeLPDDR5xGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speed8448 MHzno data
Memory bandwidthno data104 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 Connectorsno data2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12_1DirectX® 12
Shader Modelno data6.3
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0

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.

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS 10.61
+27.7%
R7 260X 8.31

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.

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS 6294
+43.7%
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 HD36
+33.3%
27−30
−33.3%
1440p16
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.15
1440pno data11.58

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 23
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Counter-Strike 2 19
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Far Cry 5 30
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Fortnite 55−60
+31.1%
45−50
−31.1%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+43.3%
30−33
−43.3%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+29.6%
27−30
−29.6%
Valorant 90−95
+34.3%
70−75
−34.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Counter-Strike 2 16
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+35.5%
110−120
−35.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Far Cry 5 28
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%
Fortnite 55−60
+31.1%
45−50
−31.1%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+43.3%
30−33
−43.3%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+29.6%
27−30
−29.6%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+29.6%
27−30
−29.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+33.3%
30−33
−33.3%
Valorant 90−95
+34.3%
70−75
−34.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Counter-Strike 2 14
+40%
10−11
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Far Cry 5 26
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+43.3%
30−33
−43.3%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+29.6%
27−30
−29.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Valorant 90−95
+34.3%
70−75
−34.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+31.1%
45−50
−31.1%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+38.2%
55−60
−38.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+50%
10−11
−50%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+42.9%
35−40
−42.9%
Valorant 110−120
+29.4%
85−90
−29.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Valorant 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%

This is how Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS and R7 260X compete in popular games:

  • Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is 33% faster in 1080p
  • Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is 33% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 10.61 8.31
Chip lithography 4 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 115 Watt

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS has a 27.7% higher aggregate performance score, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 283.3% lower power consumption.

The Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260X in performance tests.

Be aware that Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS is a notebook card while Radeon R7 260X is a desktop 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.

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS
SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS
AMD Radeon R7 260X
Radeon R7 260X
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS
vs
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS
R7 260X Radeon R7 260X
vs
GTX 560 Ti 448 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS
vs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7
Arc Graphics 140V Arc Graphics 140V
vs
Vega 8 Embedded Vega 8 Embedded
Arc Graphics 140V Arc Graphics 140V
vs
RX Vega 2 RX Vega 2
Arc Graphics 140V Arc Graphics 140V
vs
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 Tiger Lake U Xe Graphics G7
Arc Graphics 130V Arc Graphics 130V
vs
HD Graphics 5000 HD Graphics 5000
Arc Graphics 130V Arc Graphics 130V
vs
UHD Graphics 617 UHD Graphics 617
Graphics (Ryzen 9000) Graphics (Ryzen 9000)
vs
RTX 5090 Mobile RTX 5090 Mobile
Broadcom VideoCore VII
vs
RTX 5070 Mobile RTX 5070 Mobile
Apple M4 20-core GPU M4 20 core GPU
vs
RTX 5090 D RTX 5090 D
RX 7800M RX 7800M
vs
GTX 960 GTX 960
RX 7800M RX 7800M
vs
GTX 1650 SUPER GTX 1650 SUPER

Community ratings

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

2.9 11 votes

Rate Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 413 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS or Radeon R7 260X, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.