GeForce GTX 285 vs Radeon R7 260X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 260X and GeForce GTX 285, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 260X outperforms GTX 285 by a whopping 110% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 477 | 662 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.28 | 0.64 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Bonaire | GT200B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (10 years ago) | 23 December 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | $359 |
| Current price | $204 (1.5x MSRP) | $98 (0.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 260X has 100% better value for money than GTX 285.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 896 | 240 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 240 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 648 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 204 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 61.60 | 51.8 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops | 708.5 gflops |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | 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 | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1242 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 104 GB/s | 159.0 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | 1 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | - | no data |
| 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.
| AppAcceleration | - | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| HD3D | - | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| ZeroCore | - | no data |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | no data | 128bit |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | no data | N/A |
| Mantle | - | no data |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Radeon R7 260X outperforms GeForce GTX 285 by 110% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon R7 260X outperforms GeForce GTX 285 by 110% in Passmark.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.25 | 3.92 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 23 December 2008 |
| Cost | $139 | $359 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 204 Watt |
The Radeon R7 260X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
