AMD Radeon HD 7670M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon HD 7670M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 7670M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- 2.5x more pipelines: 480 vs 192
- Around 21% better floating-point performance: 576.0 gflops vs 476.9 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- 9.1x lower typical power consumption: 20 Watt vs 182 Watt
- 2.3x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 896 MB
- Around 80% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 999 MHz
- Around 63% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 91 vs 56
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 17 February 2012 vs 16 June 2008 |
Pipelines | 480 vs 192 |
Floating-point performance | 576.0 gflops vs 476.9 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt vs 182 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 896 MB |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 999 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 91 vs 56 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
- 2.1x more core clock speed: 1242 MHz vs 600 MHz
- 2.6x more texture fill rate: 36.9 billion / sec vs 14.4 GTexel / s
- 2.6x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1215 vs 473
- 13.8x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 19512 vs 1417
- 3.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.664 vs 2.47
- 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 477.327 vs 210.901
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1242 MHz vs 600 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 36.9 billion / sec vs 14.4 GTexel / s |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1215 vs 473 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 19512 vs 1417 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.664 vs 2.47 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 477.327 vs 210.901 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3342 vs 3341 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3342 vs 3341 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 7670M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon HD 7670M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 473 | 1215 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 91 | 56 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 1417 | 19512 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.47 | 8.664 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 210.901 | 477.327 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1228 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2194 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3341 | 3342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1228 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2194 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3341 | 3342 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.906 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 29.525 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon HD 7670M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | Thames | GT200 |
Launch date | 17 February 2012 | 16 June 2008 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $629.99 | $449 |
Place in performance rating | 1404 | 1407 |
Price now | $629.99 | $95.38 |
Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 1.48 | 13.70 |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1242 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 576.0 gflops | 476.9 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 480 | 192 |
Texture fill rate | 14.4 GTexel / s | 36.9 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt | 182 Watt |
Transistor count | 716 million | 1,400 million |
CUDA cores | 192 | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, Dual Link DVIHDTV |
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | |
SLI options | 2-way3-way | |
Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 896 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB / s | 111.9 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 448 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 999 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3, (GDDR5) | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
SLI |