GeForce GTX 260 vs Radeon RX Vega 56

#ad 
Buy
Radeon RX Vega 56 Radeon RX Vega 64 Radeon RX Vega 64 Limited Edition Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Limited Edition Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano Radeon RX Vega XL Radeon RX Vega XT Radeon RX Vega XTX Radeon Vega Frontier Edition Liquid
VS
#ad 
Buy
GTX 260 GTX 260 Core 216 GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 OEM GTX 260 Rev. 2

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 and GeForce GTX 260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
29.35
+987%

RX Vega 56 outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 987% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
RX Vega 56 RX Vega 56
GTX 260 GTX 260

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking165770
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation20.180.14
Power efficiency11.061.17
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameVega 10GT200
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

RX Vega 56 has 14314% better value for money than GTX 260.

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 cores3584192
Core clock speed1156 MHz576 MHz
Boost clock speed1471 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate329.536.86
Floating-point processing power10.54 TFLOPS0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs6428
TMUs22464

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin2x 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 typeHBM2GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB896 MB
Memory bus width2048 Bit448 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz999 MHz
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s111.9 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortDual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.1.125N/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.

RX Vega 56 29.35
+987%
GTX 260 2.70
  • Passmark

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.

RX Vega 56 13115
+986%
GTX 260 1208

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 HD115
+1050%
10−12
−1050%
1440p77
+1000%
7−8
−1000%
4K50
+1150%
4−5
−1150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.47
+1194%
44.90
−1194%
1440p5.18
+1138%
64.14
−1138%
4K7.98
+1307%
112.25
−1307%
  • RX Vega 56 has 1194% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX Vega 56 has 1138% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX Vega 56 has 1307% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+1044%
16−18
−1044%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+1100%
6−7
−1100%
Hogwarts Legacy 70−75
+1083%
6−7
−1083%
Battlefield 5 151
+1158%
12−14
−1158%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+1044%
16−18
−1044%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+1100%
6−7
−1100%
Far Cry 5 98
+989%
9−10
−989%
Fortnite 150
+1150%
12−14
−1150%
Forza Horizon 4 141
+1075%
12−14
−1075%
Forza Horizon 5 100−105
+1011%
9−10
−1011%
Hogwarts Legacy 70−75
+1083%
6−7
−1083%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 153
+993%
14−16
−993%
Valorant 190−200
+994%
18−20
−994%
Battlefield 5 140
+1067%
12−14
−1067%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+1044%
16−18
−1044%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+1050%
24−27
−1050%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+1100%
6−7
−1100%
Dota 2 130−140
+1033%
12−14
−1033%
Far Cry 5 93
+1063%
8−9
−1063%
Fortnite 139
+1058%
12−14
−1058%
Forza Horizon 4 134
+1017%
12−14
−1017%
Forza Horizon 5 100−105
+1011%
9−10
−1011%
Grand Theft Auto V 94
+1075%
8−9
−1075%
Hogwarts Legacy 70−75
+1083%
6−7
−1083%
Metro Exodus 70
+1067%
6−7
−1067%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 137
+1042%
12−14
−1042%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 124
+1140%
10−11
−1140%
Valorant 190−200
+994%
18−20
−994%
Battlefield 5 131
+992%
12−14
−992%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+1100%
6−7
−1100%
Dota 2 130−140
+1033%
12−14
−1033%
Far Cry 5 89
+1013%
8−9
−1013%
Forza Horizon 4 109
+990%
10−11
−990%
Hogwarts Legacy 70−75
+1083%
6−7
−1083%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120
+1100%
10−11
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74
+1133%
6−7
−1133%
Valorant 190−200
+994%
18−20
−994%
Fortnite 108
+1100%
9−10
−1100%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+1000%
7−8
−1000%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+1122%
18−20
−1122%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+1140%
5−6
−1140%
Metro Exodus 42
+1300%
3−4
−1300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+994%
16−18
−994%
Valorant 230−240
+1014%
21−24
−1014%
Battlefield 5 99
+1000%
9−10
−1000%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
Far Cry 5 74
+1133%
6−7
−1133%
Forza Horizon 4 88
+1000%
8−9
−1000%
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+1040%
5−6
−1040%
Fortnite 74
+1133%
6−7
−1133%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Grand Theft Auto V 50
+1150%
4−5
−1150%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Metro Exodus 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+1000%
4−5
−1000%
Valorant 190−200
+1100%
16−18
−1100%
Battlefield 5 55
+1000%
5−6
−1000%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Dota 2 95−100
+1113%
8−9
−1113%
Far Cry 5 39
+1200%
3−4
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+1080%
5−6
−1080%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 44
+1000%
4−5
−1000%
Fortnite 37
+1133%
3−4
−1133%

This is how RX Vega 56 and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 56 is 1050% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 56 is 1000% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 56 is 1150% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 29.35 2.70
Recency 14 August 2017 16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 896 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 182 Watt

RX Vega 56 has a 987% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 814.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 260, on the other hand, has 15.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
Radeon RX Vega 56
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GTX 260
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

RX Vega 56 Radeon RX Vega 56
vs
Arc A770 Arc A770
GTX 260 GeForce GTX 260
vs
GT 1010 GeForce GT 1010
RX Vega 56 Radeon RX Vega 56
vs
Titan X Pascal Titan X Pascal
Tesla V100 PCIe Tesla V100 PCIe
vs
RTX 5880 Ada Generation RTX 5880 Ada Generation
PRO WX 9100 PRO WX 9100
vs
RX 460 RX 460
PRO WX 9100 PRO WX 9100
vs
S7150 x2 S7150 x2
PRO WX 9100 PRO WX 9100
vs
RX 6900 XTX RX 6900 XTX
RX Vega 56 RX Vega 56
vs
HD Graphics 620 HD Graphics 620
RX Vega 56 RX Vega 56
vs
RTX 4000 Ada Generation RTX 4000 Ada Generation
RX Vega 64 RX Vega 64
vs
RX 5950 XT 5950 XT
RX Vega 64 Limited Edition RX Vega 64 Limited Edition
vs
Pro Vega 48 Pro Vega 48
GTX 1070 SLI 1070 SLI
vs
RTX 3060 Ti GDDR6X 3060 Ti GDDR6X
Quadro P5200 P5200
vs
R9 390 R9 390

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.3
857 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7
618 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX Vega 56 or GeForce GTX 260, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.