Radeon R9 260 vs GeForce GTX 860M
Radeon R9 260
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 860M
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 860M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 860M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 260.
| Insight | Radeon R9 260 | GeForce GTX 860M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R9 260 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 260 holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $50), it costs 20% less, resulting in a 23.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 260 | GeForce GTX 860M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+23.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($40) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) |
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 Radeon R9 260 and GeForce GTX 860M
Radeon R9 260
The Radeon R9 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 5 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 947 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,048 points. Launch price was $399.
GeForce GTX 860M
The GeForce GTX 860M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 13 2014. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 797 MHz to 1085 MHz. It has 1152 or 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,095 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 260 scores 3,048 and the GeForce GTX 860M reaches 3,095 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 260 is built on GCN 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 860M uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,560 (Radeon R9 260) vs 1,152 (GeForce GTX 860M). Raw compute: 4.849 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 260) vs 1.389 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 860M).
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | GeForce GTX 860M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,048 | 3,095+2% |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+122% | 1152 or 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.849 TFLOPS+249% | 1.389 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+300% | 16 |
| TMUs | 160+300% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 640 KB+100% | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | GeForce GTX 860M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon R9 260) vs 2 MB (GeForce GTX 860M) — the GeForce GTX 860M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | GeForce GTX 860M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 260 draws 275W versus the GeForce GTX 860M's 75W — a 114.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 860M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 450W (Radeon R9 260) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 860M). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | GeForce GTX 860M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 275W | 75W-73% |
| Recommended PSU | 450W | 350W-22% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 11.1 | 41.3+272% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 260 costs 20% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 76.2 (Radeon R9 260) vs 61.9 (GeForce GTX 860M) — the Radeon R9 260 offers 23.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 860M is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2013).
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | GeForce GTX 860M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $139 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40-20% | $50 |
| Performance per Dollar | 76.2+23% | 61.9 |
| Codename | Hawaii | GM107 |
| Release | November 5 2013 | January 13 2014 |
| Ranking | #316 | #578 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 260 and GeForce GTX 860M
