GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2 vs Radeon VII

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking123not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation22.15no data
Power efficiency9.95no data
ArchitectureGCN 5.1 (2018−2022)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameVega 20GT200B
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date7 February 2019 (6 years ago)23 July 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$699 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores3840192
Core clock speed1400 MHz576 MHz
Boost clock speed1750 MHzno data
Number of transistors13,230 million1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)295 Watt182 Watt
Texture fill rate420.036.86
Floating-point processing power13.44 TFLOPS0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs6428
TMUs24064

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
Length280 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin2x 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 typeHBM2GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount16 GB896 MB
Memory bus width4096 Bit448 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz999 MHz
Memory bandwidth1024 GB/s111.9 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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-

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 Model6.74.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.11.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA-1.3

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 February 2019 23 July 2008
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 896 MB
Chip lithography 7 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 295 Watt 182 Watt

Radeon VII has an age advantage of 10 years, a 1728.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 260 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has 62.1% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon VII and GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2. We've got no test results to judge.

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 VII
Radeon VII
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2
GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


2.9 2903 votes

Rate Radeon VII on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 7 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon VII or GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.