NVIDIA GeForce GTS 260M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTS 260M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M 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 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 260M
- Around 31% higher texture fill rate: 17.6 GTexel / s vs 13.46 GTexel / s
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 96 vs 72
- Around 63% better floating-point performance: 264 gflops vs 162 gflops
- Around 18% lower typical power consumption: 38 Watt vs 45 Watt
| Texture fill rate | 17.6 GTexel / s vs 13.46 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 96 vs 72 |
| Floating-point performance | 264 gflops vs 162 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 38 Watt vs 45 Watt |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
- Around 2% higher core clock speed: 561 MHz vs 550 MHz
| Core clock speed | 561 MHz vs 550 MHz |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 260M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 260M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 494 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 66 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 7043 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1450 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1450 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 926 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 926 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTS 260M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GT215 | GT215 |
| Launch date | 15 June 2009 | 15 June 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | not rated | 1518 |
| Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 561 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 96 | |
| Floating-point performance | 264 gflops | 162 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 396 | |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 96 | 72 |
| Texture fill rate | 17.6 GTexel / s | 13.46 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 38 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Transistor count | 727 million | 727 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | HDMIVGADual Link DVIDisplayPortSingle Link DVILVDS | No outputs |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 10.1 | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB / s | 35.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory type | GDDR3, GDDR5 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
| Memory clock speed | 2200 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| HybridPower | ||
| MXM 3.0 Type-B | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
| PowerMizer 8.0 | ||
| SLI | ||
