R7 260x power consumption: AMD Radeon R7 260X 2 GB Review — Power Consumption

The AMD Radeon R7 265 & R7 260 ReviewMeet The Sapphire Radeon R7 265Meet The Asus Radeon R7 260The TestMetro: Last LightCompany of Heroes 2Bioshock InfiniteBattlefield 4Crysis 3Crysis: WarheadTotal War: Rome 2Hitman: AbsolutionGRID 2SyntheticsComputePower, Temperature, & NoiseFinal Words

As always, last but not least is our look at power, temperature, and noise. Next to price and performance of course, these are some of the most important aspects of a GPU, due in large part to the impact of noise. All things considered, a loud card is undesirable unless there’s a sufficiently good reason – or sufficiently good performance – to ignore the noise.

Neither the R7 260 nor the R7 265 are remarkable as far as voltages are concerned. Both of these are right in the range of common voltages for lower clocked Pitcairn and Bonaire products respectively. Though this does reinforce the fact that R7 265 won’t see any significant power savings compared to R9 270.

Looking briefly at average clockspeeds, despite the fact that these cards implement different power control mechanisms – PowerTune Boost 1. 0 and PowerTune Boost 2.0 respectively – the end results are the same. Neither card has difficulty maintaining its top clockspeed for their entire runs, this owing in large part due to the fact that they’re not under any significant thermal load that would require pulling back.

Starting as always with idle power consumption, we can see that all of our low-end cards are tightly clustered. With idle power consumption as good as it is for both AMD and NVIDIA, further improvements are relatively marginal by desktop standards and are essentially drowned out by the large PSU in our GPU testbed.

Power consumption under Crysis 3 closely mirrors relative performance, at least for our current-generation 28nm cards. The R7 260 for its part draws 196W at the wall, 15W-23W more than the R7 250X and GTX 650 cards it clearly outclasses, and 5W more than the GTX 650 Ti that it still manages to consistently beat. More interesting is that it’s drawing 26W at the wall less than the R7 260X, showcasing that AMD’s power numbers for these cards were in fact almost spot on, especially after accounting for the change in CPU power consumption.

Otherwise for the R7 265, we can see that power consumption slots in above the 7850 and R7 260X, and below the R9 270 by 9W, the kind of very limited change we were expecting. At the same time we can see just how close the R7 265 and GTX 660 are – separated by just 4W – which goes hand-in-hand with their similar performance.

Under FurMark we do see some shifts in relative power consumption, though not relative rankings. At 189W the R7 260 is virtually tied with the less powerful 250X, underscoring Bonaire’s greater efficiency and improved power throttling mechanisms, while the 235W R7 265 once again slots in between the R7 260X and R9 270 by several watts in each direction.

Moving on to temperatures, our idle temperatures are unremarkable. At 29C for the R7 265 and 31C for the R7 260 both cards do well enough, but they can’t touch the near room temperature operating temperatures of some of the NVIDIA 650 cards.

With both of today’s cards being low power open air cooled dual fan cards, there’s little concern for temperatures. Both cards are easily below 70C, with the more powerful R7 265 easily dropping to 55C due to its larger cooler. The R7 260 hits 66C despite its relatively low power, though Asus has clearly been targeting a balance between noise and temperatures as opposed to just maximum cooling in their more recent designs.

Of our two cards, the R7 265 gets the worse of FurMark relatively speaking, thanks in part to its coarser power throttling mechanisms. Regardless even when presented with a maximum load, both cards do well for themselves here, having no trouble staying below 70C.

Last but not least we have our noise testing. Both the R7 260 and R7 265 do very well for themselves at idle, taking the #1 and #2 spots respectively. Both of these cards are functionally near-silent at idle, and this proves that both Asus and Sapphire did their homework by being able to hit these noise levels with a dual fan configuration, something not every vendor has had a ton of luck with over the years.

Once again both of today’s cards do very well here. Though the R7 260 is admittedly among the lowest powered cards here, and hence has the easiest time, it nevertheless takes the top spot at 38dB. This being quieter than both the GTX 650 and GTX 650 Ti, the two cards it’s closest to in power consumption and heat generation.

Meanwhile at 40.4dB is the R7 265, where Sapphire has managed to stay cool and quiet despite the nearly 150W the card can pull. At this point it’s still marginally quieter than the slower 260X and over 6dB quieter than the performance-competitive GTX 660 (though it should be noted that the GTX 660 is a blower).

FurMark once again changes the picture, but only slightly slow. Even under this extreme workload Asus’s R7 260 comes away smiling, topping out at 38.5dB, 2.5dB less than the GTX 650 Ti. Otherwise we have the Sapphire R7 265 at 43.6dB, which gives up some of its edge from earlier but not much, easily besting the GTX 660 and R7 260X, but falling a bit short of the GTX 650 Ti.

Taken in altogether, both Asus and Sapphire have done good jobs with their R7 260 and R7 265 respectively. As we’ve seen both are able to hit low noise levels even for their relative classes, all the while easily maintaining low operating temperatures.

Otherwise from a power perspective as neither card is based on a new GPU, there are admittedly no real surprises to be had. Power roughly scales with performance, with the R7 265 as a 3^rd tier part seeing a lesser benefit, and thereby falling a bit behind the efficiency curve as set by the higher tier Pitcairn parts.

Compute
Final Words
The AMD Radeon R7 265 & R7 260 ReviewMeet The Sapphire Radeon R7 265Meet The Asus Radeon R7 260The TestMetro: Last LightCompany of Heroes 2Bioshock InfiniteBattlefield 4Crysis 3Crysis: WarheadTotal War: Rome 2Hitman: AbsolutionGRID 2SyntheticsComputePower, Temperature, & NoiseFinal Words

Tweet

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

EVGA GeForce GTX 750 SuperClock vs MSI Radeon R7 260X OC

At a Glance

Our Verdict

The Radeon R7 260X is a very good sub-£100 card, generating strong frame rates that make 1920×1200 a genuine prospect. As such, we’re making it the clear pick at this price point. However, the GeForce GTX 750 will be of interest to any of those looking for a power-saving solution that can still produce good gaming performance.

What do you get if you buy a
graphics cards for under £100 these days? Quite a lot, as it turns out. Here’s our EVGA GeForce GTX 750 SuperClock vs MSI Radeon R7 260X OC comparison review.

Of course, we’re not talking about graphical showcases of everything that’s spectacular and sublime – a flagship card will set you back £300, while for the most glorious results at quad-HD resolutions over multiple monitors you’ll still be looking at upwards of £500. However, these cards will let you play the latest games at decent frame rates – just as long as you’re happy to do without maximum-ultra detail or are satisfied to play at lower resolutions. See also:
best graphics cards of 2015.

Only have £65 to spend? Read our 
Asus GeForce GT 740 OC vs Sapphire Radeon R7 250X comparison review

The EVGA GeForce GTX 750 SuperClock is based around nVidia’s GeForce GTX 750, a chip that was released in early 2014 alongside its slightly more powerful brother, the 750 Ti – which itself sits at just over £100.

Both the 750 and 750 Ti marked a radical shift for nVidia. Gone was the desire to pump the most pixels out of the silicon. Instead, these chips aimed to produce similar performance to previous-generation products, but while consuming much less power. In truth, this was always going to make this a slightly underwhelming product, since you were sacrificing the expected speed improvement in order to obtain lower consumption – and lower consumption, while laudable, is hardly calculated to excite or thrill.

The Radeon R7 260X, on the other hand, came out in late 2013, and proved to be a far more conventional grab for frame rates – even if it was really little more than a slightly enhanced version of the old but faithful friend, the HD 7790.

At first glance, the cards may seem a little disappointing. The 750 even comes with just 1GB of memory – at this higher price-point, we’d prefer to see 2GB.

We’ve already seen in our
GeForce GT 740 vs Radeon R7 250X review that there’s a significant jump in performance between £45 and £65 graphics cards. However, on paper an extra £24 doesn’t seem to make much difference to the GTX 750 and R7 260X’s specifications.

Take the memory sub-system, for instance. Both cards are still hampered by 128-bit buses. In this regard, graphics cards haven’t really come very far in recent years, with most offering buses no wider than those of the products from the end of the last decade. And compared to their cheaper rivals, overall memory speed seems to be little changed. Whereas the Radeon R7 250X and GeForce GT 740 OC offered effective memory clocks of 4.5 to 5GHz, the GTX 750 OverClock pushes up to only 5.012GHz. The 260X fares a little better, but even here we’re looking at 6GHz – a solid but not amazing jump.

In fairness to these cards, even far more expensive cards struggle to get much above these figures – the sizzling £300 Radeon R9 290X, for instance, manages just 5GHz. Clearly, then, overall figures are just one part of the equation. But even so, it’s notable that the GTX 750’s memory bandwidth figure of 80. 2GB/sec is identical to that of the GT 240, and not that much of an improvement on the R7 250X’s 72GB/sec. In part, that’s because of the 750’s emphasis on power consumption. The R7 260X, with its more typical speed-oriented approach, offers a rather more expansive bandwidth figure of 96GB/sec.

The GTX 750 does tout a rather stellar core clock speed of 1294MHz. This outstanding figure towers over the R7 260X’s 1050MHz, and casts an even longer shadow over the 950-1033MHz specs of the £65 cards. But, as we’ve seen already with the GT 740, high core clock speed means rather less than the number of texture units. And here the R7 260X wins decisively, brandishing a mighty 56 of them. The 750 has a particularly disappointing complement of 32, which places it only on a par with the lowly GT 740, and which leaves it trailing the cheaper Radeon R7 260X’s 40 texture units. So while the 750 does have a better texture fill rate than the £65 cards, its overall figure of 41.4GT/sec is only a minor improvement on those cards’ figures of 33. 1 to 38GT/sec. And the 260X scorches ahead, notching up a stunning 58.8GT/sec.

The 260X also fares much better on stream processors, offering 896 of them to the 750’s 512. We’ve noted already that the Radeon architecture tends to favour large numbers of stream processors. But once again it’s a reminder that, in terms of hardware specifications, the Radeon R7 260X OC is very much the victor over its power-conscious rival, the GTX 750. But if it is indeed power that drives you on, you’ll relish the 750. So conservative is it, it doesn’t even require additional power from the PSU – the 260X, in contrast, requires an extra 6pin connector. And the 750’s TDP of 60 watts is almost half that of the 260X OC’s 115 watts. In the real world, the gap isn’t quite as big, but we were regularly detecting drops of more than 45 watts between the 750 and the 260X. The 750 is quieter as well. See also:
best graphics cards of 2015.

EVGA GeForce GTX 750 SuperClock vs MSI Radeon R7 260X OC comparison: Benchmark results

These being the most expensive cards in the test, you would expect some good frame rates from them. And, indeed, these sub-£100 products can handle games even at the relatively high resolution of 1920×1200. We say ‘relatively’, because top-end cards can, of course, drive multi-screen systems with resolutions several times those of these cards. But if you’re running a single-screen setup, these cards will be adequate – although it’s always worth spending a little more if you can afford it. But both cards can work many of our tests at comfortably-playable frame rates of 45fps. 50fps is ideal for smooth results, of course, which makes the R7 260X the best buy of these two. Put simply, the 750 is too much of a compromise, tailored as it is towards conserving power. Given the apparent disparity between the cards on paper, the 750 is actually surprisingly close to its rival. But we were still seeing average increases of 3-4fps – and, in Crysis 3, a gap of almost 7fps.

Copy: Copy: |
Create infographics

Specs

MSI Radeon R7 260X OC: Specs

• AMD Radeon R7 260X
• 2 GB GDDR5
• 1050MHz core clock
• 1500 MHz memory clock (6GHz DDR effective)
• 128-bit memory interface
• 896 stream processors
• 56 texture units
• 16 ROP units
• PCI-E interface
• DirectX 11
• 2x DVI, 1x HDMI
• 1x DP
• 1x 6-pin PSU connector
• 3-year warranty

AMD Radeon R7 260X graphics card

• Edelmark rating 6. 3 out of 10;
• Release date: October, 2013;
• Video card memory capacity: 2048 MB;
• Video memory type: GDDR5;
• GPU clock: 1.188 MHz.

Specifications AMD Radeon R7 260X

GPU

Performance

Number of shaders	896
TMU	56
Number of ROPs	16
Computer units	14
Pixel fill rate	19.01 GPixel/s
Texture Fill Rate	66.5 GTexel/s
Number of floating point operations (FLOPS)	2,128. 9 GFLOPS

Memory

Energy consumption

Radeon R7 260X vs. Similar Graphics Cards , Thief, Alien: Isolation, Anno 2070, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Diablo III, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, FIFA 15, FIFA 16, GRID Autosport, Grand Theft Auto V, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.

Radeon R7 260X	5.2 out of 10
GeForce GTX 750 Ti	6.0 out of 10
GeForce GTX 750	6. 0 out of 10

Graphics

Video card tests performed on: T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor, Fire Strike Factor.

Computing power

Tested on: Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation, Particle Simulation, Video Composition, Bitcoin Mining.

Output per W

Tested on: Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite, Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Dirt3, FarCry 3, Hitman: Absolution, Metro: Last Light, Thief, Alien: Isolation, Anno 2070, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Diablo III, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, FIFA 15, FIFA 16, GRID Autosport, Grand Theft Auto V, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, T-Rex, Manhattan , Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor, Fire Strike Factor, Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation, Particle Simulation, Video Composition, Bitcoin Mining, TDP.

Price-Performance

Tested on: Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite, Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Dirt3, FarCry 3, Hitman: Absolution, Metro: Last Light, Thief, Alien: Isolation, Anno 2070 , Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Diablo III, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, FIFA 15, FIFA 16, GRID Autosport, Grand Theft Auto V, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor, Fire Strike Factor, Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation, Particle Simulation, Video Composition, Bitcoin Mining, Best new price.

Noise and Power

Tested at: TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption, Idle Noise Level, Load Noise Level.

Overall graphics card rating

Benchmarks Radeon R7 260X

Bitcoin mining

Face Recognition

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.

0)

Manhattan test (GFXBench 3.0)

Test Fire Strike

Sky Diver test

Thief

Radeon R7 260X	7.7
GeForce GTX 750 Ti	27. 6
GeForce GTX 750	24

Battlefield 4

Video Reviews

MSI AMD Radeon R7 260x Review, Test in 9 Games on 4 CPUs

Quick Review Asus Radeon R7 260x

Radeon R7 260X reviews

Absolutely not correct test. 260X is priced the same as GTX 750 (without Ti prefix). GTX 750 Ti is a third more expensive if we take the cost of 260X as a standard. And the fool understands that nVidia will not sell more expensive for a third of the equivalent chip. Therefore, without watching this test, you already know that the GTX 750 Ti will win in almost all tests. Compare the 260X to the regular GTX 750 and everything will fall into place. In the low and mid-price categories, nVidia is inferior to AMD. At the same time, not everything is so rosy for AMD in the top segment.

+ postal and even more recently, at the beginning of 2014, these vidyahi cost about 4500 rubles and ddr3 memory 8 GB for 1600-1800 rubles and hard 1 TB 2200-2400 rubles there was no need for more overclocking)) and amd stones generally cost a penny for trinity 3-4 nuclear atlons up to 2000 rubles, amd 750k 2200 rubles oem, fx 6300 3500-3800 rubles, monicas and in general it was possible to buy from 2500 rubles for 19 inches and for 22 \\ » about 4500-5000 rubles, I remember such prices

is the same 7870 for 2 GB. Everyone speaks of her very well. How does a budget card work? The stalkash has a vidos about her. I have one worth it. Not complaining. I drive it to 1235 on the chip and 1335 on memory. Sapphire version. at max speed of non-telators 65-67 degrees. I have enough to play. Small enough for CSGO and Dota 2 too.) (Although on the Internet I saw it warmed up to 110 degrees. This is not on the chip, but somewhere along the power circuit or something. I don’t remember, it was a long time ago.)

Tags:1.188 MHz, 2048 MB, AMD, GDDR5, GPU, Radeon R7 260X

AMD Radeon R7 260X Review. Benchmarks and specs

The AMD Radeon R7 260X graphics card (GPU) is ranked #300 in our performance ranking. Manufacturer: AMD. AMD Radeon R7 260X running at minimum clock speed. The graphics chip is equipped with an acceleration system and can operate in turbo mode or when overclocked at a frequency of 1000 MHz. The RAM size is 4 GB GB with a clock speed and a bandwidth of 104 GB/s.

The power consumption of the AMD Radeon R7 260X is 115 Watts and the process technology is only 28 nm. Below you will find key compatibility, sizing, technology, and gaming performance test results. You can also leave comments if you have any questions.

Let’s take a closer look at the key features of the AMD Radeon R7 260X. To have an idea of ​​which video card is better, we recommend using the comparison service.

3.7
From 27
Hitesti Grade

Popular video cards

Most viewed

AMD Radeon RX Vega 7

Intel UHD Graphics 630

Intel UHD Graphics 600

AMD Radeon RX Vega 10

NVIDIA Quadro T1000

Intel HD Graphics 530

NVIDIA GeForce MX330

Intel UHD Graphics 620

Intel HD Graphics 4600

Intel HD Graphics 520

Buy here:

Yandex Market

SberMegaMarket

AliExpress

General information

A basic set of information will help you find out the release date of the AMD Radeon R7 260X graphics card and its purpose (laptops or PCs), as well as the price at the time of release and the average current cost. This data also includes the architecture used by the manufacturer and the video processor code name.

Specifications

This is important information that determines all the performance characteristics of the AMD Radeon R7 260X graphics card. The smaller the technological process of manufacturing a chip, the better (in modern realities). The clock frequency of the core is responsible for its speed (direct correlation), while signal processing is carried out by transistors (the more transistors, the faster the calculations are performed, for example, in cryptocurrency mining).

Dimensions, Connectors, and Compatibility

There are many PC case and laptop form factors available today, so it’s important to know the length of your graphics card and how it’s connected (except for laptop versions). This will help make the upgrade process easier, as Not all cases can accommodate modern video cards.

Memory (frequency and overclocking)

Internal memory is used to store data when performing calculations. Modern games and professional graphics applications place high demands on the amount and speed of memory. The higher this parameter, the more powerful and faster the video card. Memory type, size and bandwidth for AMD Radeon R7 260X + turbo overclocking capability.

Support for ports and displays

As a rule, all modern video cards have several types of connections and additional ports, for example HDMI and DVI . Knowing these features is very important to avoid problems when connecting a video card to a monitor or other peripherals.

Technologies

Each graphics card manufacturer complements its products with proprietary technologies that are used both in games and in the workflow. Below is a list of features that will be useful to you.

API Support

All APIs supported by the AMD Radeon R7 260X graphics card are listed below. This is a minor factor that does not greatly affect the overall performance.

General gaming performance

All tests are based on FPS. Let’s take a look at how the AMD Radeon R7 260X ranks in the gaming performance test (calculated according to the game developer’s recommendations for system requirements; it may differ from actual situations).

Select games
Horizon Zero DawnDeath StrandingF1 2020Gears TacticsDoom EternalHunt ShowdownEscape from TarkovHearthstoneRed Dead Redemption 2Star Wars Jedi Fallen OrderNeed for Speed ​​HeatCall of Duty Modern Warfare 2019GRID 2019Ghost Recon BreakpointFIFA 20Borderlands 3ControlF1 2019League of LegendsTotal War: Three KingdomsRage 2Anno 1800The Division 2Dirt Rally 2. 0AnthemMetro ExodusFar Cry New DawnApex LegendsJust Cause 4Darksiders IIIFarming Simulator 19Battlefield VFallout 76Hitman 2Call of Duty Black Ops 4Assassin´s Creed OdysseyForza Horizon 4FIFA 19Shadow of the Tomb RaiderStrange BrigadeF1 2018Monster Hunter WorldThe Crew 2Far Cry 5World of Tanks enCoreX-Plane 11.11Kingdom Come: DeliveranceFinal Fantasy XV BenchmarkFortniteStar Wars Battlefront 2Need for Speed ​​PaybackCall of Duty WWIIAssassin´s Creed OriginsWolfenstein II: The New ColossusDestiny 2MEDLE-Evil Within : Shadow of WarFIFA 18Ark Survival EvolvedF1 2017Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds (2017)Team Fortress 2Dirt 4Rocket LeaguePreyMass Effect AndromedaGhost Recon WildlandsFor HonorResident Evil 7Dishonored 2Call of Duty Infinite WarfareTitanfall 2Farming Simulator 17Civilization VIBattlefield 1Mafia 3Deus Ex Mankind DividedMirror’s Edge CatalystOverwatchDoomAshes of the SingularityHitman 2016The DivisionFar Cry PrimalXCOM 2Rise of the Tomb RaiderRainbow Six SiegeAssassin’s Creed SyndicateStar Wars BattlefrontFallout 4Call of Duty: Black Ops 3Anno 2205World of WarshipsDota 2 RebornThe Witcher 3Dirt RallyGTA VDragon Age: InquisitionFar Cry 4Assassin’s Creed Un ityCall of Duty: Advanced WarfareAlien: IsolationMiddle-earth: Shadow of MordorSims 4Wolfenstein: The New OrderThe Elder Scrolls OnlineThiefX-Plane 10. 25Battlefield 4Total War: Rome IICompany of Heroes 2Metro: Last LightBioShock InfiniteStarCraft II: Heart of the SwarmSimCityTomb RaiderCrysis 3Hitman: AbsolutionCall of Duty : Black Ops 2World of Tanks v8Borderlands 2Counter-Strike: GODirt ShowdownDiablo IIIMass Effect 3The Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimBattlefield 3Deus Ex Human RevolutionStarCraft 2Metro 2033Stalker: Call of PripyatGTA IV — Grand Theft AutoLeft 4 DeadTrackmania Nations ForeverCall of Duty 4 — Modern WarfareSupreme Commander — FA BenchCrysis — GPU BenchmarkWorld in Conflict — BenchmarkHalf Life 2 — Lost Coast BenchmarkWorld of WarcraftDoom 3Quake 3 Arena — TimedemoHalo InfiniteFarming Simulator 22Battlefield 2042Forza Horizon 5Riders RepublicGuardians of the GalaxyBack 4 BloodDeathloopF1 2021Days GoneResident Evil VillageHitman 3Cyberpunk 2077Assassin´s Creed ch Dogs LegionMafia Definitive EditionCyberpunk 2077 1.5GRID LegendsDying Light 2Rainbow Six ExtractionGod of War

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Horizon Zero Dawn (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Death Stranding (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

F1 2020 (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Gears Tactics (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Doom Eternal (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Description
5	Stutter — The performance of this video card with this game has not yet been studied enough. Based on interpolated information from graphics cards of a similar performance level, the game is likely to stutter and display low frame rates.
	May Stutter — The performance of this video card with this game has not yet been studied enough. Based on interpolated information from graphics cards of a similar performance level, the game is likely to stutter and display low frame rates.
30	Fluent — According to all known benchmarks with the specified graphic settings, this game is expected to run at 25 fps or more
40	Fluent — According to all known benchmarks with the specified graphics settings, this game is expected to run at 35fps or more
60	Fluent — According to all known benchmarks with the specified graphics settings, this game is expected to run at 58 fps or more
	May Run Fluently — The performance of this video card with this game has not yet been sufficiently studied. Based on interpolated information from graphics cards of a similar performance level, the game is likely to show smooth frame rates.
?	Uncertain — testing this video card in this game showed unexpected results. A slower card could deliver higher and more consistent frame rates while running the same reference scene.
	Uncertain — The performance of this video card in this game has not yet been studied enough. It is not possible to reliably interpolate data based on the performance of similar cards in the same category.
The value in the fields reflects the average frame rate across the entire database. To get individual results, hover over a value.

AMD Radeon R7 260X in benchmark results

Benchmarks help determine performance in standard AMD Radeon R7 260X benchmarks. We have compiled a list of the most famous benchmarks in the world so that you can get accurate results for each of them (see description). Pre-testing the graphics card is especially important when there are high loads, so that the user can see how the graphics processor copes with calculations and data processing.

Overall performance in benchmarks

AMD Radeon RX 480 Mobile

14.05%

AMD Radeon R9 M390

14.05%

AMD Radeon R7 260X

14.05%

NVIDIA GeForce MX350

13.97%

AMD FirePro W5100

13.96%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics Benchmark: Graphic card performance test results. Check 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics GPU Test Results at hitesti.com

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

AMD Radeon R7 260X

AMD Radeon HD 7790

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

Passmark benchmark: Graphic card performance test results. Check Passmark GPU test results at hitesti.com

AMD Radeon R9 M380

AMD Radeon R7 360

AMD Radeon R7 260X

NVIDIA GeForce MX350

AMD FirePro W5100

3.