GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2 vs Radeon R7 240 (HD 8570 rebrand)
Summary
Reasons to consider GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2 |
| Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Tesla), there are no performance optimizations for current games and applications |
| PhysX support, however PhysX performance on newest games may be poor |
Reasons to consider Radeon R7 240 (HD 8570 rebrand) |
| 132 watts lower power draw. This might be a strong point if your current power supply is not enough to handle the GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2 . |
| This is a much newer product, it might have better long term support. |
| Supports Direct3D 12 Async Compute |
| Supports ReLive (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty) |
| Supports Mantle |
| Based on an outdated architecture (AMD GCN), there may be no performance optimizations for current games and applications |
No clear winner declared
We have no data to declare a winner at this time.
Core Configuration
| GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2 | | Radeon R7 240 (HD 8570 rebrand) | |
|---|
| GPU Name | GT200B (G200-103-B3) | vs | Oland () |
| Fab Process | 55 nm | vs | 28 nm |
| Die Size | 470 mm² | vs | 90 mm² |
| Transistors | 1,400 million | vs | 1,040 million |
| Shaders | 192 | vs | 320 |
| Compute Units | 8 | vs | 5 |
| Core clock | 576 MHz | vs | 730 MHz |
| ROPs | 28 | vs | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | vs | 20 |
Memory Configuration
| GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2 | | Radeon R7 240 (HD 8570 rebrand) | |
|---|
| Memory Type | GDDR3 | vs | DDR3 |
| Bus Width | 448 bit | vs | 128 bit |
| Memory Speed | 999 MHz
1998 MHz effective | vs | 900 MHz
1800 MHz effective |
| Memory Size | 896 Mb | vs | 2048 Mb |
Additional details
| GeForce GTX 260 Rev. 2 | | Radeon R7 240 (HD 8570 rebrand) | |
|---|
| TDP | 182 watts | vs | 50 watts |
| Release Date | 23 Jul 2008 | vs | 1 Nov 2013 |
GigaPixels - higher is better
GigaTexels - higher is better
GFLOPs - higher is better