AMD Radeon R7 260 Review: The Bonaire GPU Rides Again

[Onus]

With the recent growth in mini-ITX, I hope companies return to single slot coolers and offer more low-profile options.

 

[ubercake]

With the recent growth in mini-ITX, I hope companies return to single slot coolers and offer more low-profile options.

True. Even if they were a little longer rather than 2-slotters, you know?

 

[dotaloc]

I was under the impression that 7790 hardware supported TrueAudio but not 7770 or 7750.

 

[RedJaron]

Huge gap between the 250 and 260. Are they actually bringing a 250X to market? Kinda sad that the 7750 is STILL the best card for no auxiliary power connectors.

 

[InvalidError]

Huge gap between the 250 and 260. Are they actually bringing a 250X to market? Kinda sad that the 7750 is STILL the best card for no auxiliary power connectors.

There is something between the R7-250 and R7-260 that does not require a PCIe power connector: the A10-7850 with 512 shaders.

With AMD's APU range going that high up on the IGP side, it is starting to become difficult to imagine much of a demand for discrete GPUs below the R7-260.

 

[Immaculate]

2500K again?

 

[alchemy69]

I just put together a system for my wife based around an Athlon 760k and an HD 7770. Crysis 2, Bioshock Infinite and Skyrim are all smooth as silk at 1080P with Ultra settings. I don't see why anyone would spend more. I had change from $600 for the whole thing, including a new Windows license.

 

[oxiide]

Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but this new "WHICH ARTICLE WILL YOU CHOOSE NEXT?" element that just appeared on this site is utter trash. It is enormous, it can't be dismissed, it sticks to my screen when scrolling, and its redundant when the article is already surrounded by suggested article links. I love the content of this site, but this is not the first time website design has seriously interfered with my enjoyment of an article.

 

[alextheblue]

The 7770 hardware supports true audio or whatever it's called as well. AMD disables it's support for it in the driver. That'll change probably I don't think they are that cynical yet..

I don't think that's accurate. The 7770 is based on Cape Verde, which is a GCN 1.0 part. I believe you're thinking of the 7790, which just like the 260 series is Bonaire based and thus GCN 1.1.

So you might see TrueAudio enabled on 7790s, if the rumors are true. But it simply doesn't exist in GCN 1.0 chips like the 7770. Hope this helps sort out a bit of the confusion!

But you do bring up a good point. TrueAudio is a nice value addition when you factor in the price difference between a 7770 and a 260. Of course, pricing on the 260 will probably remain terrible until they sell off a lot of their older inventory, so you might as well skip it and get a 260X.

 

[alextheblue]

With AMD's APU range going that high up on the IGP side, it is starting to become difficult to imagine much of a demand for discrete GPUs below the R7-260.

For the most part I think that's true. But AMD's hybrid crossfire is getting better. I'd like to see how it does after another few major driver releases. It might be worth it to couple something like a cheap 250 with one of their APUs. That has the potential to provide a good performance boost, while still fitting in a small box (small cards, maybe even half-height options, no additional connector). Might even bring some hope as a drop-in upgrade to an otherwise hopeless compact OEM box.

I just put together a system for my wife based around an Athlon 760k and an HD 7770. Crysis 2, Bioshock Infinite and Skyrim are all smooth as silk at 1080P with Ultra settings. I don't see why anyone would spend more. I had change from $600 for the whole thing, including a new Windows license.

Those aren't bad choices for a budget build, especially the 760K. But as to why anyone would spend more... there's a couple of factors. For starters, what you perceive as smooth may not be smooth enough to a discerning FPS gamer running a high-end monitor. More demanding games, especially in large multiplayer matches may need extra grunt. Image tearing can be a problem too, some people are really sensitive to that, and need v-sync or something (G-sync? FreeSync? man I'd really like to see more on FreeSync...) which might require additional performance and/or extra hardware. Finally, "Ultra" settings don't necessarily mean you've maxed things out. It might not be turning on every bell and whistle.

Again, I'm not trying to be critical in the slightest. I think that's a good budget gaming machine and I'd be happy enough using a machine like that. But look at the benches in this article. The actual framerates you're probably getting at those settings are likely not super high. If I was using that card I'd back off to more moderate settings to get a higher minimum framerate and better frame latency. It's more important to me than eye candy alone - but to each their own.

 

[InvalidError]

Might even bring some hope as a drop-in upgrade to an otherwise hopeless compact OEM box.

It depends which compact OEM boxes you are writing about. It looks like the NUC ball is starting to roll with those J1800-based boards and if that catches on, low-end systems will reach a whole new level of "hopeless" enthusiast-wise with systems lacking desktop-style PCIe slots.

I would not be surprised if NUC-style systems, albeit with somewhat more powerful SoCs than the J1800, became frighteningly popular in the future.

 

[Sangeet Khatri]

Your decision to not to include a 2GB R7 260 was a little disappointing because in 2014, no one is going to bother to buy a card with 1GB VRAM, they are definitely going to buy the 2GB version. You should have had included that.

 

[cleeve]

Your decision to not to include a 2GB R7 260 was very annoying because in 2014, no one is going to bother to buy a card with 1GB VRAM, they are definitely going to buy the 2GB version. You should have had included that.

That's nonsense. Based on what evidence?

1GB of RAM is ample, even for bleeding edge games. Especially for this class of card.

You only really need more for ultra-high resolutions with AA enabled, not something the 260 is going to have to worry about.

 

[Herr_Koos]

Your decision to not to include a 2GB R7 260 was very annoying because in 2014, no one is going to bother to buy a card with 1GB VRAM, they are definitely going to buy the 2GB version. You should have had included that.

1GB of RAM is ample, even for bleeding edge games. Especially for this class of card.

You only really need more for ultra-high resolutions with AA enabled, not something the 260 is going to have to worry about.

Disagree. From personal experience I can attest for example that StarCraft 2 with no AA but Ultra textures and shaders at 1680x1050 is enough to max out 1GB of VRAM, and it's not a bleeding-edge game. 1GB will work if you are willing to compromise on some settings, but for many games you can fill it up frighteningly quickly.

 

[InvalidError]

Your decision to not to include a 2GB R7 260 was very annoying because in 2014, no one is going to bother to buy a card with 1GB VRAM, they are definitely going to buy the 2GB version. You should have had included that.

Try finding a 2GB R7-260 non-X.

There does not appear to be any on the market yet. Pretty hard to cover something that effectively does not exist in a roundup.

On the other hand, there is a handful of 2GB R7-260X available for as low as $139.99

 

[Novuake]

Disagree. From personal experience I can attest for example that StarCraft 2 with no AA but Ultra textures and shaders at 1680x1050 is enough to max out 1GB of VRAM, and it's not a bleeding-edge game. 1GB will work if you are willing to compromise on some settings, but for many games you can fill it up frighteningly quickly.

As Cleeve pointed out a bit vaguely
Most people looking for this class of card, do not have anywhere near that resolution. Most max out around 720p.

Not that I think that SC2 behave that way at all. Just because it uses that 1GB fully, does not mean it NEEDS to max it out to run optimally.

 

[Herr_Koos]

Disagree. From personal experience I can attest for example that StarCraft 2 with no AA but Ultra textures and shaders at 1680x1050 is enough to max out 1GB of VRAM, and it's not a bleeding-edge game. 1GB will work if you are willing to compromise on some settings, but for many games you can fill it up frighteningly quickly.

As Cleeve pointed out a bit vaguely
Most people looking for this class of card, do not have anywhere near that resolution. Most max out around 720p.

Not that I think that SC2 behave that way at all. Just because it uses that 1GB fully, does not mean it NEEDS to max it out to run optimally.

I've hit stuttering with GPU usage well below 100%, and looking at graphs of resource usage showed maxed-out VRAM as the likely culprit. True, not every game behaves that way, but some certainly do.

 

[InvalidError]

Most people looking for this class of card, do not have anywhere near that resolution. Most max out around 720p.

Somehow, I doubt 720p is that common of a resolution for PC users aside from laptops since low-end 1080p desktop LCDs have been about as cheap as lower resolution low-end displays for a couple of years already. Most complete kits with monitors from Dell, HP and others have also included 1080p displays for a while.

If you look at the Steam survey, here are the resolutions that account for about 85% of Steam users:
- 32.5% for 1920x1080
- 23.8% for 1366x768
- 7.6% for 1600x900
- 7.2% for 1280x1024
- 6.7% for 1680x1050
- 5.9% for 1440x900
- 2.9% for 1024x768
- 2.6% for 1280x800
- 2.3% for 1920x1200
- 0.95% for 2560x1440
- 0.92% for 1280x720

So, we have almost 33% of Steam players running 1080p, another ~33% running at resolutions 900p or higher aside from 1080p and about 33% running at 800p or lower. 1080p quite definitely is the norm today.

Somewhat surprisingly, proper 720p is less common on Steam than 1440p.

I'm not surprised with 1366x768 being the second most common resolution given how long that oddball resolution has been around and the standard for low-end laptops and pseudo-HD displays/TVs.

 

[bandrei]

why not mantle ? is not available for this gpu?

 

[Novuake]

23.8% for 1366x768

Close enough.

And it was an estimate to prove a point.

 

[InvalidError]

23.8% for 1366x768

Close enough.

And it was an estimate to prove a point.

Not sure what point you were trying to make.

The steam survey indicates that about 2/3 of people own displays capable of similar or higher resolutions than what you said most people looking at the R7-260 would get "nowhere near" and the GPU list seems to indicate quite a fair chunk of those people must be driving those displays with something quite a bit worse than the R7-260.

My main display is 1200p and I'm still happy with my old HD5770. Most of the details I have to "give up" to maintain decent frame rates are things I would turn down/off anyway because visual clutter annoys me. That tells me the R7-260 is certainly worth considering at 1080p for people who aren't into (ultra-)competitive FPS, RTS and other similar stuff.

 

[Sangeet Khatri]

Disagree. From personal experience I can attest for example that StarCraft 2 with no AA but Ultra textures and shaders at 1680x1050 is enough to max out 1GB of VRAM, and it's not a bleeding-edge game. 1GB will work if you are willing to compromise on some settings, but for many games you can fill it up frighteningly quickly.

As Cleeve pointed out a bit vaguely
Most people looking for this class of card, do not have anywhere near that resolution. Most max out around 720p.

Not that I think that SC2 behave that way at all. Just because it uses that 1GB fully, does not mean it NEEDS to max it out to run optimally.

Well.. I have an AMD A8 APU for now and I am having the 1600x900 resolution, so I can directly relate myself with it. I also have my eye on R7 260 or 260x as an upgrade, the price difference might be not in USA, but here in India, the difference increases a lot, so R7-260 is actually cheaper for Indian audience when compared to the R7-260x.

Here in India, the cheapest R9-260x costs about $180, so the R7-260 makes sense at about $140-$150 in our country.

The extra VRAM allows for a little use of AA which makes a lot of difference when gaming in resolutions below 1080p. Not everyone can afford a 1080p monitor, especially when the overall budget for the build with a monitor is $450 including everything else.

 

[Novuake]

23.8% for 1366x768

Close enough.

And it was an estimate to prove a point.

Not sure what point you were trying to make.

The steam survey indicates that about 2/3 of people own displays capable of similar or higher resolutions than what you said most people looking at the R7-260 would get "nowhere near" and the GPU list seems to indicate quite a fair chunk of those people must be driving those displays with something quite a bit worse than the R7-260.

My main display is 1200p and I'm still happy with my old HD5770. Most of the details I have to "give up" to maintain decent frame rates are things I would turn down/off anyway because visual clutter annoys me. That tells me the R7-260 is certainly worth considering at 1080p for people who aren't into (ultra-)competitive FPS, RTS and other similar stuff.

Whether an R7 260 has 2GB of VRAM or 1GB will not improve its performance by any significant degree at 1080p.

My point was people buying the R7 260 are not buying it for 1080p. At least not if they are making an informed decision.
Just posting arbitrary number does not prove anything if you do not know what context its in, meaning what cards they are using with it.

 

[Novuake]

Well.. I have an AMD A8 APU for now and I am having the 1600x900 resolution, so I can directly relate myself with it. I also have my eye on R7 260 or 260x as an upgrade, the price difference might be not in USA, but here in India, the difference increases a lot, so R7-260 is actually cheaper for Indian audience when compared to the R7-260x.

Here in India, the cheapest R9-260x costs about $180, so the R7-260 makes sense at about $140-$150 in our country.

The extra VRAM allows for a little use of AA which makes a lot of difference when gaming in resolutions below 1080p. Not everyone can afford a 1080p monitor, especially when the overall budget for the build with a monitor is $450 including everything else.

Again, what source indicates that resolutions lower than 1080p would need 2GB to crank AA?
AA is memory BANDWIDTH intense as far as I know.

 

[rdc85]

I agree 2 Gb is a waste for this level of card..

I would happier if they keep this way. 1 Gb but decent price than 2 Gb but inflated/mark up price...
We already seen so many lower tier card with 2 Gb card just to fool uninformed buyer...

And if u runs out on 1Gb with this kind of card, it means your rig is quite unbalanced....