NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M 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, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), 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 - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- 15.2x lower typical power consumption: 12 Watt vs 182 Watt
- 4.2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 221 vs 53
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 3 September 2010 vs 16 June 2008 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 12 Watt vs 182 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 221 vs 53 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
- Around 24% higher core clock speed: 1242 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- 12.3x more texture fill rate: 36.9 billion / sec vs 3.0 billion / sec
- 4x more pipelines: 192 vs 48
- 5x better floating-point performance: 476.9 gflops vs 96 gflops
- Around 75% higher maximum memory size: 896 MB vs 512 MB
- Around 25% higher memory clock speed: 999 MHz vs 800 MHz
- 4.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1208 vs 286
- 26x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 19512 vs 751
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3342 vs 1570
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3342 vs 1570
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1242 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 36.9 billion / sec vs 3.0 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 192 vs 48 |
| Floating-point performance | 476.9 gflops vs 96 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 896 MB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz vs 800 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1208 vs 286 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19512 vs 751 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3342 vs 1570 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3342 vs 1570 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 286 | 1208 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 221 | 53 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 751 | 19512 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 442 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 442 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1158 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1158 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1570 | 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1570 | 3342 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.664 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 477.327 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.906 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 29.525 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Fermi | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GF108 | GT200 |
| Launch date | 3 September 2010 | 16 June 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1393 | 1396 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | |
| Price now | $95.38 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 13.70 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1242 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 48 | 192 |
| Floating-point performance | 96 gflops | 476.9 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 48 | 192 |
| Texture fill rate | 3.0 billion / sec | 36.9 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 12 Watt | 182 Watt |
| Transistor count | 585 million | 1,400 million |
| 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 | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 896 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB / s | 111.9 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 448 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 999 MHz |
| Memory type | (G)DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GT 415M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 260
NVIDIAGeForce GT 415M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 130 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce GT 415M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 240
NVIDIAGeForce GT 415M vs
AMDFirePro M8900
NVIDIAGeForce GT 415M vs
AMDRadeon HD 6230
NVIDIAGeForce GT 415M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 630M
