AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM vs AMD Radeon HD 6990
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM and AMD Radeon HD 6990 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 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 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- Around 33% higher core clock speed: 1100 MHz vs 830 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 4.4x lower typical power consumption: 85 Watt vs 375 Watt
- Around 30% higher memory clock speed: 6500 MHz vs 5000 MHz
- Around 1% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3048 vs 3014
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 21 December 2013 vs 8 March 2011 |
| Core clock speed | 1100 MHz vs 830 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 85 Watt vs 375 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 6500 MHz vs 5000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3048 vs 3014 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 6990
- 4.5x more texture fill rate: 2x 79.7 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 61.6 GTexel / s
- 3.4x more pipelines: 2x 1536 vs 896
- 2.6x better floating-point performance: 2x 2,549.8 gflops vs 1,971 gflops
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2x 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 532 vs 508
- 3.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3713 vs 971
- 3.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3713 vs 971
- Around 69% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 1980
- Around 69% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 1980
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 2x 79.7 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2x 1536 vs 896 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 2,549.8 gflops vs 1,971 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 2x 2 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 532 vs 508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3713 vs 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3713 vs 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 1980 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 1980 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 6990
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM | AMD Radeon HD 6990 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 508 | 532 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3048 | 3014 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 971 | 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 971 | 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1980 | 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1980 | 3356 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 17.264 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 840.452 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.76 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 53.903 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 265.302 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4562 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4562 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM | AMD Radeon HD 6990 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | TeraScale 3 |
| Code name | Bonaire | Antilles |
| Launch date | 21 December 2013 | 8 March 2011 |
| Place in performance rating | 664 | 665 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | |
| Price now | $159.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 27.81 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1100 MHz | 830 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops | 2x 2,549.8 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 896 | 2x 1536 |
| Texture fill rate | 61.6 GTexel / s | 2x 79.7 GTexel / s billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 85 Watt | 375 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,080 million | 2,640 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 183 mm | 295 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 8-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2x 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 104.0 GB / s | 2x 160.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 2x 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6500 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM with others
AMDRadeon R9 260 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce PCX 5900
AMDRadeon R9 260 OEM vs
AMDRadeon HD 6990
AMDRadeon R9 260 OEM vs
AMDRadeon R7 250X
AMDRadeon R9 260 OEM vs
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM
AMDRadeon R9 260 OEM vs
AMDFirePro W6150M
AMDRadeon R9 260 OEM vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega 8 Mobile
