GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB vs Radeon R7 M260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 M260 and GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB outperforms R7 M260 by a whopping 816% 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 | 1062 | 438 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.48 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Topaz | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 June 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 February 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 768 |
| Compute units | 6 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 940 MHz | 1366 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | 1442 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 23.52 | 69.22 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7526 TFLOPS | 2.215 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 24 |
| TMUs | 24 | 48 |
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 | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 84.1 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 | No outputs |
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 | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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
−746%
| 110−120
+746%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 61.46 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−757%
|
60−65
+757%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−789%
|
80−85
+789%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−809%
|
300−310
+809%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−797%
|
260−270
+797%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−782%
|
150−160
+782%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−757%
|
60−65
+757%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−789%
|
80−85
+789%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−809%
|
300−310
+809%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−782%
|
150−160
+782%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−757%
|
60−65
+757%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−789%
|
80−85
+789%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−809%
|
300−310
+809%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−775%
|
70−75
+775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−746%
|
110−120
+746%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−800%
|
45−50
+800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−775%
|
140−150
+775%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−733%
|
50−55
+733%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
This is how R7 M260 and GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is 746% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.24 | 11.36 |
| Recency | 11 June 2014 | 1 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
R7 M260 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, on the other hand, has a 816.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
