GeForce GTS 150M vs Radeon R7 M260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 M260 and GeForce GTS 150M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 1032 | 1031 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | no data |
Power efficiency | no data | 2.00 |
Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
GPU code name | Topaz | G94 |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Release date | 11 June 2014 (10 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 64 |
Compute units | 6 | no data |
Core clock speed | 940 MHz | 400 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 505 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 23.52 | 12.80 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.7526 TFLOPS | 0.128 TFLOPS |
Gigaflops | no data | 192 |
ROPs | 8 | 16 |
TMUs | 24 | 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).
Laptop size | medium sized | large |
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCI-E 2.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | Up to 800 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 51 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 Connectors | No outputs | DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVILVDSSingle Link DVIVGA |
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.
FreeSync | + | - |
HD3D | + | - |
PowerTune | + | - |
DualGraphics | + | - |
ZeroCore | + | - |
Switchable graphics | + | - |
Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
OpenGL | 4.3 | 2.1 |
OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
Vulkan | - | N/A |
Mantle | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 13
+8.3%
| 12−14
−8.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | 61.46 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 1−2 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how R7 M260 and GTS 150M compete in popular games:
- R7 M260 is 8% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 150M is 267% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 150M is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
- there's a draw in 45 tests (96%)
Pros & cons summary
Recency | 11 June 2014 | 3 March 2009 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
R7 M260 has an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 M260 and GeForce GTS 150M.
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.