GeForce GTX 260M vs Quadro FX 1800
GeForce GTX 260M
Popular choices:
Quadro FX 1800
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GTX 260M is positioned at rank 134 and the Quadro FX 1800 is on rank 364, so the GeForce GTX 260M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 260M
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 1800
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro FX 1800 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GTX 260M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 260M | Quadro FX 1800 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro FX 1800 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 260M and Quadro FX 1800
GeForce GTX 260M
The GeForce GTX 260M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 16 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 576 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 182W. Manufactured using 65 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 382 points. Launch price was $449.
Quadro FX 1800
The Quadro FX 1800 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 395 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 260M scores 382 and the Quadro FX 1800 reaches 395 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 260M is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Quadro FX 1800 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 65 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 192 (GeForce GTX 260M) vs 240 (Quadro FX 1800). Raw compute: 0.4769 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 260M) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 1800).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 260M | Quadro FX 1800 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 382 | 395+3% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 65 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 240+25% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.4769 TFLOPS | 0.6221 TFLOPS+30% |
| ROPs | 28 | 32+14% |
| TMUs | 64 | 80+25% |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 256 KB+14% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 260M | Quadro FX 1800 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 260M comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 1800 has 768 MB. The GeForce GTX 260M offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 224 KB (GeForce GTX 260M) vs 256 KB (Quadro FX 1800) — the Quadro FX 1800 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 260M | Quadro FX 1800 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB+33% | 0.75 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 256 KB+14% |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 260M draws 182W versus the Quadro FX 1800's 189W — a 3.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 260M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 260M) vs 350W (Quadro FX 1800). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 260M | Quadro FX 1800 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 182W-4% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 2.1 | 2.1 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 260M and Quadro FX 1800
