AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 M260 and NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS 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), 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 M260
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 7 month(s) later
- Around 77% higher core clock speed: 940 MHz vs 530 MHz
- Around 41% higher texture fill rate: 22.56 GTexel / s vs 16 billion / sec
- 6x more pipelines: 384 vs 64
- 4.3x better floating-point performance: 721.9 gflops vs 169.6 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 8x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 512 MB
- 2.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 124 vs 50
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 11 June 2014 vs 1 November 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 940 MHz vs 530 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 22.56 GTexel / s vs 16 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 64 |
| Floating-point performance | 721.9 gflops vs 169.6 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 512 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 124 vs 50 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS
- Around 60% higher memory clock speed: 1600 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 534 vs 514
- Around 42% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2414 vs 1704
- Around 42% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2414 vs 1704
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 534 vs 514 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2414 vs 1704 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2414 vs 1704 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M260
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R7 M260 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 514 | 534 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 124 | 50 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5118 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.249 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 145.3 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.925 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.992 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 77.895 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1404 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1093 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1704 | 2414 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1404 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1093 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1704 | 2414 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R7 M260 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | Topaz | G94 |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Launch date | 11 June 2014 | 1 November 2008 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | |
| Place in performance rating | 1476 | 1479 |
| Price now | $799 | |
| Type | Desktop | Laptop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 1.33 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | |
| Compute units | 6 | |
| Core clock speed | 940 MHz | 530 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 721.9 gflops | 169.6 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 64 |
| Texture fill rate | 22.56 GTexel / s | 16 billion / sec |
| Transistor count | 3,100 million | 505 million |
| CUDA cores | 64 | |
| Gigaflops | 254 | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 60 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 10.0 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | 51.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PCIe 3.0 | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Switchable graphics | ||
| Zero Core | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
| CUDA | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R7 M260 with others
AMDRadeon R7 M260 vs
ATIRadeon IGP 345M
AMDRadeon R7 M260 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9800M GS
AMDRadeon R7 M260 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 380M
AMDRadeon R7 M260 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 320 OEM
AMDRadeon R7 M260 vs
IntelHD Graphics 5500
AMDRadeon R7 M260 vs
AMDRadeon R6 M335DX
