GeForce GTX 260 216 vs Radeon R9 290X
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 344 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.06 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.67 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Hawaii | GT200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 24 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 16 September 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $299 |
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 | 2816 | 216 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 576 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 947 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 182 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 176.0 | 41.47 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.632 TFLOPS | 0.5365 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 28 |
| TMUs | 176 | 72 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 224 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |
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 | 896 MB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 448 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 999 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 111.9 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.3 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 24 October 2013 | 16 September 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 896 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 182 Watt |
R9 290X has an age advantage of 5 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 260 216, on the other hand, has 37.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 290X and GeForce GTX 260 Core 216. We've got no test results to judge.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
