NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M 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, GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, 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 GTS 350M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 1% higher core clock speed: 1249 MHz vs 1242 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- 6.5x lower typical power consumption: 28 Watt vs 182 Watt
- Around 14% higher maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 896 MB
- Around 30% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 69 vs 53
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 7 January 2010 vs 16 June 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 1249 MHz vs 1242 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 28 Watt vs 182 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 896 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 69 vs 53 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
- 2.3x more texture fill rate: 36.9 billion / sec vs 16 GTexel / s
- 2x more pipelines: 192 vs 96
- Around 99% better floating-point performance: 476.9 gflops vs 240 gflops
- 3.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1209 vs 381
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3342 vs 3123
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3342 vs 3123
- 2.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 19512 vs 8210
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 36.9 billion / sec vs 16 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 192 vs 96 |
| Floating-point performance | 476.9 gflops vs 240 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1209 vs 381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3342 vs 3123 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3342 vs 3123 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19512 vs 8210 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 381 | 1209 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 69 | 53 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3123 | 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3123 | 3342 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8210 | 19512 |
| 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 GTS 350M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GT215 | GT200 |
| Launch date | 7 January 2010 | 16 June 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1410 | 1412 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | |
| Price now | $95.38 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 13.70 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1249 MHz | 1242 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 96 | 192 |
| Floating-point performance | 240 gflops | 476.9 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 360 | |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 96 | 192 |
| Texture fill rate | 16 GTexel / s | 36.9 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 28 Watt | 182 Watt |
| Transistor count | 727 million | 1,400 million |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | DisplayPortLVDSHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGA | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
| SLI options | 2-way | 2-way3-way |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 10.1 | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 896 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB / s | 111.9 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 448 Bit |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| HybridPower | ||
| MXM 3.0 Type-B | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
| PowerMizer 8.0 | ||
| SLI | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTS 350M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9600 GSO
NVIDIAGeForce GTS 350M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 260
NVIDIAGeForce GTS 350M vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 3800M
NVIDIAGeForce GTS 350M vs
ATIFirePro V3800
NVIDIAGeForce GTS 350M vs
AMDFirePro M8900
NVIDIAGeForce GTS 350M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 630M
