GeForce GTX 260 vs TITAN V
Aggregate performance score
We've compared TITAN V and GeForce GTX 260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
TITAN V outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 1325% 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 | 110 | 820 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.12 | 0.14 |
| Power efficiency | 12.57 | 1.21 |
| Architecture | Volta (2017−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GV100 | GT200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 December 2017 (7 years ago) | 16 June 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
TITAN V has 2843% better value for money than GTX 260.
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 | 5120 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 576 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1455 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 21,100 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 182 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 465.6 | 36.86 |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.9 TFLOPS | 0.4769 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 28 |
| TMUs | 320 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | 640 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 7.5 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 4.5 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 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 type | HBM2 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 896 MB |
| Memory bus width | 3072 Bit | 448 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 848 MHz | 999 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 651.3 GB/s | 111.9 GB/s |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 7.0 | + |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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:
| 1440p | 152
+1420%
| 10−12
−1420%
|
| 4K | 82
+1540%
| 5−6
−1540%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1440p | 19.73
+128%
| 44.90
−128%
|
| 4K | 36.57
+146%
| 89.80
−146%
|
- TITAN V has 128% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- TITAN V has 146% lower cost per frame in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.76 | 2.86 |
| Recency | 7 December 2017 | 16 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 896 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 182 Watt |
TITAN V has a 1325.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1271.4% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 260, on the other hand, has 37.4% lower power consumption.
The TITAN V is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 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.
