GeForce GTS 450 vs Radeon R7 260

Place in the ranking	536	735
Place by popularity	not in top-100	96
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.72	0.65
Power efficiency	5.45	2.22
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Bonaire	GF106
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	17 December 2013 (11 years ago)	13 September 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109	$129

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 260 has 472% better value for money than GTS 450.

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	768	192
Core clock speed	no data	783 MHz
Boost clock speed	1100 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,080 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	115 Watt	106 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	100 °C
Texture fill rate	48.00	25.06
Floating-point processing power	1.536 TFLOPS	0.6013 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	48	32

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 support	PCIe 3.0	PCI-E 2.0 x 16
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	170 mm	210 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	+

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1625 MHz	1804 (3608 data rate) MHz
Memory bandwidth	104 GB/s	57.7 GB/s

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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
DisplayPort support	+	-
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.3	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.2
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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.

R7 260 7.43
+120%

GTS 450 3.38

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.

R7 260 2891
+120%

GTS 450 1316

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.

R7 260 4380
+183%

GTS 450 1545

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:

900p	65−70 +117%	30 −117%
Full HD	80−85 +116%	37 −116%
1200p	55−60 +104%	27 −104%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

1.36
+156%

3.49

−156%

R7 260 has 156% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
World of Tanks	86 +0%	86 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
World of Tanks	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Valorant	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Fortnite	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

This is how R7 260 and GTS 450 compete in popular games:

R7 260 is 117% faster in 900p
R7 260 is 116% faster in 1080p
R7 260 is 104% faster in 1200p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.43	3.38
Recency	17 December 2013	13 September 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	115 Watt	106 Watt

R7 260 has a 119.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GTS 450, on the other hand, has 8.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 450 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.