GeForce GTX 260M SLI vs Radeon R7 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250 with GeForce GTX 260M SLI, including specs and performance data.
260M SLI outperforms R7 250 by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 876 | 814 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.99 | 1.57 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Oland | NB9E-GTX |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 384 | 224 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 1508 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8064 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no 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 size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 10 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 HD | 19
−10.5%
| 21−24
+10.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.68 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−9.3%
|
45−50
+9.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−18.4%
|
55−60
+18.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−9.3%
|
45−50
+9.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−9.3%
|
45−50
+9.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−21.1%
|
21−24
+21.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−12.5%
|
27−30
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−31.8%
|
27−30
+31.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how R7 250 and GTX 260M SLI compete in popular games:
- GTX 260M SLI is 11% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 260M SLI is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 260M SLI performs better in 50 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.52 | 3.05 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 2 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
R7 250 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 96% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
GTX 260M SLI, on the other hand, has a 21% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTX 260M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 260M SLI is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
