Winner
AMD Radeon R7 260X
GPUBoss recommends the AMD Radeon R7 260X based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details Radeon R7 260X vs GeForce GT 620 |
VS
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R7 260X vs 620 among Desktop GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 5.7 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much higher effective memory clock speed | 6,500 MHz | vs | 1,800 MHz | More than 3.5x higher effective memory clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 11,820 | vs | 750 | More than 15.8x better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 1,100 MHz | vs | 700 MHz | More than 55% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly better PassMark score | 3,128 | vs | 432 | Around 7.2x better PassMark score | |||
| Significantly higher memory bandwidth | 104 GB/s | vs | 14.4 GB/s | Around 7.2x higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 1,971.2 GFLOPS | vs | 268.8 GFLOPS | More than 7.2x better floating-point performance | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 6,931 | vs | 2,230 | More than 3x better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Higher texture rate | 61.6 GTexel/s | vs | 11.2 GTexel/s | More than 5.5x higher texture rate | |||
| More memory | 2,048 MB | vs | 1,024 MB | 2x more memory | |||
| Significantly better fire strike factor score | 33.7 | vs | 5.23 | Around 6.5x better fire strike factor score | |||
| Much higher memory clock speed | 1,625 MHz | vs | 900 MHz | More than 80% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 17.6 GPixel/s | vs | 2.8 GPixel/s | More than 6.2x higher pixel rate | |||
| More shading units | 896 | vs | 96 | 800 more shading units | |||
| Significantly better T-Rex score | 3.67 frames/s | vs | 0.37 frames/s | Around 10x better T-Rex score | |||
| More texture mapping units | 56 | vs | 16 | 40 more texture mapping units | |||
| More render output processors | 16 | vs | 4 | 12 more render output processors | |||
| Better PassMark direct compute score | 1,681 | vs | 271 | Around 6.2x better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Better manhattan score | 3,715.1 | vs | 1,280.78 | Around 3x better manhattan score | |||
| Wider memory bus | 128 bit | vs | 64 bit | 2x wider memory bus | |||
| |||||||
| Better 3DMark06 score | 4,730 | vs | 1,903 | Around 2.5x better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Lower TDP | 49W | vs | 115W | 2.3x lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R7 260X vs GeForce GT 620
Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench
Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench
Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench
T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Cloud Gate Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $274 | ||
| R7 260X vs 750 Ti | ||
| | VS |  |
| R7 260X vs 750 | ||
| | VS |  |
| R7 260X vs 7770 | ||
| | VS |  |
| R7 260X vs 7850 | ||
| | VS |  |
| R7 260X vs R7 360 | ||
| | VS |  |
| R7 260X vs 650 Ti | ||
| | VS |  |
| R7 260X vs 7790 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $267 | ||
| 1060 vs RX 580 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $267 | ||
| 1060 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS | |
| $267 | ||
| 970 vs 1060 | ||
| | VS | |
| 970 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS | |
| 960 vs 1050 Ti | ||
| | VS | |
| 970 vs 960 | ||
| | VS | |
| $274 | ||
| 750 Ti vs 960 | ||
