AMD Radeon R7 260X vs NVIDIA GeForce 510 OEM
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 260X and NVIDIA GeForce 510 OEM 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, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/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, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 260X
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- 14.7x more texture fill rate: 61.6 GTexel / s vs 4.18 GTexel / s
- 18.7x more pipelines: 896 vs 48
- 19.6x better floating-point performance: 1,971 gflops vs 100.42 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- 11x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3192 vs 290
- 3.2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 523 vs 163
- 2.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3485 vs 1254
- Around 95% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 1723
- 2.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3485 vs 1254
- Around 95% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 1723
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 8 October 2013 vs 29 September 2011 |
Texture fill rate | 61.6 GTexel / s vs 4.18 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 896 vs 48 |
Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops vs 100.42 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3192 vs 290 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 523 vs 163 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3485 vs 1254 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 1723 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3485 vs 1254 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 1723 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 510 OEM
- 4.6x lower typical power consumption: 25 Watt vs 115 Watt
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 25 Watt vs 115 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 260X
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 510 OEM
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R7 260X | NVIDIA GeForce 510 OEM |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3192 | 290 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 523 | 163 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 43.745 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 804.436 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.673 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.088 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 221.539 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3845 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3485 | 1254 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 1723 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3845 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3485 | 1254 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 1723 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1481 | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 758 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R7 260X | NVIDIA GeForce 510 OEM | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
Code name | Bonaire | GF119 |
Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Launch date | 8 October 2013 | 29 September 2011 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | |
Place in performance rating | 614 | 1360 |
Price now | $239 | |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 17.15 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | |
Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops | 100.42 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 896 | 48 |
Stream Processors | 896 | |
Texture fill rate | 61.6 GTexel / s | 4.18 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 115 Watt | 25 Watt |
Transistor count | 2,080 million | 292 million |
Core clock speed | 523 MHz | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
DisplayPort support | ||
Dual-link DVI support | ||
Eyefinity | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 170 mm | 145 mm |
Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | None |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 104 GB/s | 14.37 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Memory clock speed | 1796 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync |