GeForce RTX 2050 vs GeForce GTX 260
Summary
Reasons to consider GeForce RTX 2050 |
| 62 watts lower power draw. This might be a strong point if your current power supply is not enough to handle the GeForce GTX 260 . |
| Higher theoretical gaming performance, based on specifications. |
| Supports PhysX |
| Supports G-Sync |
| Supports ShadowPlay (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty) |
| Supports Direct3D 12 Async Compute |
| Supports DirectX Raytracing (DXR) |
| Supports Deep Learning Super-Sampling (DLSS) |
Reasons to consider GeForce GTX 260 |
| Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Tesla), there are no performance optimizations for current games and applications |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 |
HWBench recommends GeForce RTX 2050
Based on theoretical specifications.
Core Configuration
| GeForce RTX 2050 | | GeForce GTX 260 | |
|---|
| GPU Name | TU107 (TU107) | vs | GT200 (G200-100-A2) |
| Fab Process | 12 nm | vs | 65 nm |
| Die Size | 0 mm² | vs | 576 mm² |
| Transistors | unknown | vs | 1,400 million |
| Shaders | 896 | vs | 192 |
| Compute Units | 14 | vs | 8 |
| Core clock | 1515 MHz | vs | 576 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | vs | 28 |
| TMUs | 56 | vs | 64 |
Memory Configuration
| GeForce RTX 2050 | | GeForce GTX 260 | |
|---|
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | vs | GDDR3 |
| Bus Width | 128 bit | vs | 448 bit |
| Memory Speed | 1750 MHz
14000 MHz effective | vs | 999 MHz
1998 MHz effective |
| Memory Size | 4096 Mb | vs | 896 Mb |
Additional details
| GeForce RTX 2050 | | GeForce GTX 260 | |
|---|
| TDP | 120 watts | vs | 182 watts |
| Release Date | UNRELEASED | vs | 16 Jun 2008 |
GeForce RTX 2050
54.24 GP/s
GeForce GTX 260
16.10 GP/s
GigaPixels - higher is better
GeForce RTX 2050
94.92 GT/s
GeForce GTX 260
36.90 GT/s
GigaTexels - higher is better
GeForce RTX 2050
224.00 GB/s
GeForce GTX 260
112.00 GB/s
GB/s - higher is better
GeForce RTX 2050
3037.00 GFLOPs
GeForce GTX 260
476.90 GFLOPs
GFLOPs - higher is better