GeForce GTX 260M vs Radeon R7 250E
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250E with GeForce GTX 260M, including specs and performance data.
R7 250E outperforms 260M by a whopping 340% 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 | 742 | 1181 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.10 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.60 | 1.08 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | G92 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 20 December 2013 (12 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | 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 | 512 | 112 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 30.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | 0.308 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 462 |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 64 KB |
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 | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | Up to 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 61 GB/s |
| 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 DisplayPort | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| 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.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 120−130
+314%
| 29
−314%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 0.91 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R7 250E and GTX 260M compete in popular games:
- R7 250E is 314% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.00 | 0.91 |
| Recency | 20 December 2013 | 3 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 65 Watt |
R7 250E has a 339.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 18.2% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 250E is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 260M 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.
