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 |
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 |
| |||||||
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 |
![]() | 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 | ||
![]() | 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 | ![]() |
970 vs R9 390 | ||