AMD Radeon 610M vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

AMD Radeon 610M and AMD Radeon R7 M260X are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different eras, and benchmark results show a clear split: the older R7 M260X wins the OpenCL compute test by a wide margin, while the newer 610M dominates in Vulkan performance. With each card taking one head-to-head win, the choice between them depends entirely on whether your workload leans on legacy compute APIs or modern graphics APIs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the winner in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 5,690 against the 610M's 4,535. That is a 20.3% advantage for the older card, which is significant for any application that still relies on OpenCL for compute tasks. This result makes sense given the architectural differences: the R7 M260X packs 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, compared to just 128 shading units and 8 TMUs on the 610M. Raw shader count matters in compute-heavy workloads, and the R7 M260X has three times the shading units.

The AMD Radeon 610M wins decisively in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 6,353 versus the R7 M260X's 4,631. That is a 37.2% margin, which is a massive generational leap. The 610M's RDNA 2.0 architecture with 2 dedicated ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) gives it a modern feature set that the GCN 1.0-based R7 M260X simply cannot match. The 610M also has a much higher boost clock at 1900 MHz compared to 715 MHz on the R7 M260X, which helps in API-level efficiency.

Looking at overall averages, the 610M posts an average benchmark score of 5,444, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. The R7 M260X has an average score of 5,161, placing it in the 30th percentile. The 610M is about 5.5% faster on average, but the distribution of wins is not uniform — the R7 M260X holds a clear edge in OpenCL while the 610M is far ahead in Vulkan.

The 610M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (average score 5,467, delta -0.4%) and AMD Radeon R7 M440 (average score 5,483, delta -0.7%). The R7 M260X sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (average score 5,154, delta 0.1%) and AMD Radeon R7 240 (average score 5,063, delta 1.9%). These comparisons show both cards are in the same performance tier overall, but their strengths are polar opposites.

The Verdict

If your software stack still uses OpenCL for compute — think older productivity apps, some scientific tools, or legacy game engines — the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the stronger pick. Its 20.3% lead in OpenCL is not a small margin, and the extra shading units provide real headroom for parallel compute tasks. This card also has dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, which is a fixed resource rather than borrowing from system RAM.

If you care about modern graphics APIs, the AMD Radeon 610M is the obvious choice. A 37.2% Vulkan lead is enormous, and the 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and has hardware ray tracing cores. The R7 M260X tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, which means it cannot run newer titles that require DX12 Ultimate features. For gaming with modern APIs, the 610M is the only sensible option.

For general use where you are not sure which API matters more, the 610M edges ahead on average benchmark score (5,444 vs 5,161) and percentile ranking (32nd vs 30th). But the R7 M260X is not obsolete — it just serves a different purpose. Choose the R7 M260X if you need OpenCL compute power and have workloads that use it. Choose the 610M if you want modern API support, ray tracing capability, and better Vulkan performance. There is no universal winner; the data shows a tie at one win each.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the R7 M260X's territory. It scores 5,690, beating the 610M's 4,535 by 20.3%. This is the larger absolute gap between the two cards in any test. The R7 M260X's 384 shading units and 24 TMUs provide 3x and 3x the respective resources of the 610M's 128 shading units and 8 TMUs. Its FP32 throughput is also higher at 549.1 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS. Even though the R7 M260X has lower clocks (620 MHz base, 715 MHz boost), the sheer parallelism wins in OpenCL.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script completely. The 610M scores 6,353 against the R7 M260X's 4,631, a 37.2% victory. This is a far bigger relative margin than the R7 M260X's OpenCL win. The 610M's RDNA 2.0 architecture is the key differentiator here — it is designed for modern APIs with lower overhead and better draw call handling. The 610M also has a 1900 MHz boost clock, which is 2.7x higher than the R7 M260X's 715 MHz. Clock speed matters more in Vulkan because the API is more efficient at utilizing available hardware, so the 610M's faster execution units shine.

The two benchmark results are almost mirror images: the R7 M260X wins by 20.3% in OpenCL, and the 610M wins by 37.2% in Vulkan. Neither card is universally faster. The average benchmark score favors the 610M (5,444 vs 5,161), but that average hides the fact that the R7 M260X is the better OpenCL performer. If an application is stuck on OpenCL, the R7 M260X will deliver noticeably better results. If it uses Vulkan, the 610M will crush the older card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has an average benchmark score of 5,444, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260X's 5,161. The 610M also ranks in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M260X ranks in the 30th.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260X beat the 610M in any test?

A: Yes, the R7 M260X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5,690 versus 4,535 for the 610M, a 20.3% advantage. This is likely due to its 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, which are far more than the 610M's 128 shading units and 8 TMUs.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest relative gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the 610M scores 6,353 against the R7 M260X's 4,631, a 37.2% lead. In absolute terms, the R7 M260X's OpenCL win is 1,155 points, while the 610M's Vulkan win is 1,722 points.

Q: Does the 610M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon 610M has 2 dedicated ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has a boost clock of 1900 MHz, which is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260X's 715 MHz boost clock. The 610M also has a higher base clock at 1500 MHz versus 620 MHz.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The R7 M260X has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 610M uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as "System Dependent" and memory type as "System Shared."

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 610M is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture using the Mendocino chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It is part of the Navi II IGP generation for Mendocino Mobile. The die size is 100 mm². It features 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. Its FP32 performance is 486.4 GFLOPS, and it supports FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is based on GCN 1.0 architecture using the Opal chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It is part of the Gem System (R7 M200) generation. The die measures 77 mm² with 950 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². It features 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. Its FP32 performance is 549.1 GFLOPS, and no FP16 capability is listed. The R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The architectural divide is stark: RDNA 2.0 is a modern, efficient design with hardware ray tracing and advanced API support, while GCN 1.0 is a legacy architecture with more raw shading units but older API compatibility. The 6 nm process on the 610M allows for much higher clocks (1900 MHz boost) despite a 15 W TDP, whereas the 28 nm process on the R7 M260X limits it to 715 MHz boost. The 610M is designed for integrated use (IGP slot width) with no power connectors, while the R7 M260X is a discrete chip that also uses no power connectors.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The process node is 6 nm for the 610M versus 28 nm for the R7 M260X. The 610M has a die size of 100 mm², while the R7 M260X has a 77 mm² die with 950 million transistors. The 610M lists no transistor count, but the R7 M260X specifies 950 million. Clock speeds diverge heavily: the 610M runs at 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost, while the R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost.

Memory is another major split. The 610M uses system shared memory with a type of "System Shared" and a bus width of "System Shared," with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." The R7 M260X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 610M's memory clock is also "System Shared," while the R7 M260X runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed.

Compute resources differ substantially. The 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, plus 2 ray tracing cores. The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. Pixel rates are 7.600 GPixel/s for the 610M versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the R7 M260X. Texture rates are 15.20 GTexel/s for the 610M versus 17.16 GTexel/s for the R7 M260X. FP32 compute is 486.4 GFLOPS for the 610M and 549.1 GFLOPS for the R7 M260X.

The bus interface differs: the 610M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R7 M260X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. TDP is listed as 15 W for the 610M, with no TDP listed for the R7 M260X. The 610M is an IGP with a slot width of "IGP," while the R7 M260X has no slot width specified. API support diverges: the 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates are 2022-09-19 for the 610M and 2015-12-05 for the R7 M260X.