AMD Radeon 610M vs AMD Radeon R7 M265 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two parts. The AMD Radeon R7 M265 claims the only recorded head-to-head victory, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4929 against the AMD Radeon 610M's 4535, a margin of 8%. That is the single comparative data point available, so the R7 M265 holds the sole win in the database.

The AMD Radeon 610M, by contrast, does not win any head-to-head benchmark in the recorded data. Its only victory comes indirectly through the broader percentile ranking. The 610M sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 M265 sits at the 29th percentile. That three-point percentile gap indicates that the 610M tends to outperform a larger share of the overall GPU population, even though it loses the direct OpenCL comparison.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The R7 M265 is the stronger choice for OpenCL compute workloads, where its 4929 score outpaces the 610M by 8%. The 610M, however, has the better overall standing in the database, with a higher average benchmark score of 5444 versus 4929 for the R7 M265. That average includes a Vulkan result for the 610M (6353) that the R7 M265 does not have, so the 610M's broader API coverage contributes to its higher composite position.

For workloads that rely on Vulkan, the 610M is the only option with a recorded score, and it delivers 6353. The R7 M265 has no Vulkan benchmark entry, so any comparison there is impossible from the data. In practical terms, the 610M offers a path for modern API workloads while the R7 M265 remains a dedicated OpenCL performer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the direct benchmark comparison?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265 wins the only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, with 4929 points against the AMD Radeon 610M's 4535 points, an 8% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 610M have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the 610M has a higher average benchmark score of 5444 versus 4929 for the R7 M265, and it also sits at a higher percentile (32nd) compared to the R7 M265 (29th). The 610M additionally has a Vulkan score of 6353, which the R7 M265 lacks.

Q: What is the architectural generation difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm process with the Mendocino chip, while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 uses GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process with the Opal chip.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The R7 M265 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128 bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The 610M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory size.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern APIs?

A: The 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The R7 M265 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the core count difference?

A: The R7 M265 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operations pipelines. The 610M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 raster operations pipelines, but it adds 2 ray tracing cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4929, while the AMD Radeon 610M scores 4535. The delta is 8% in favor of the R7 M265. This is a meaningful margin for a single compute test, indicating that the older GCN 1.0 architecture still holds an advantage in raw OpenCL throughput.

The R7 M265's advantage likely stems from its higher shading unit count. It packs 384 shading units against the 610M's 128, a 3x difference in raw shader hardware. Additionally, the R7 M265 has 24 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs, compared to 8 TMUs and 4 ROPs on the 610M. Even though the 610M runs at much higher clocks (1500 MHz base, 1900 MHz boost versus 725 MHz base, 825 MHz boost), the sheer hardware count on the R7 M265 wins the OpenCL test.

The 610M, however, posts a Vulkan score of 6353, which is not part of the head-to-head comparison because the R7 M265 has no Vulkan result. That Vulkan score exceeds the R7 M265's OpenCL score by 28.9%, showing that the 610M's modern architecture can deliver strong results when the API supports it. The 610M also achieves a higher FP32 compute rating of 486.4 GFLOPS in the database, though the R7 M265's FP32 rating is 633.6 GFLOPS, which contradicts the OpenCL result. The recorded benchmark, not the theoretical rating, is the decisive factor.

In the broader rival context, the 610M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, 0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416, 0.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, 0.7% higher). The 610M sits within 1% of these peers, meaning it is tightly clustered in the mid-range of mobile GPU performance. The R7 M265's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931, 0% difference), the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, 0.5% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, 0.6% higher). The R7 M265 is effectively tied with these peers, with the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB being a notable modern card that scores nearly identically in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ substantially across nearly every specification category. The 610M uses a 6 nm process node from TSMC, while the R7 M265 uses a 28 nm node from the same foundry. The 610M's die size is 100 mm², and the R7 M265's die size is 77 mm². The R7 M265 has a listed transistor count of 950 million, while the 610M does not have a transistor figure in the database.

Clock speeds differ sharply. The 610M runs at 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. The R7 M265 runs at 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost, less than half the 610M's boost clock. Memory configurations are entirely different: the R7 M265 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128 bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the 610M uses system shared memory with no dedicated bandwidth figure, described as system dependent.

The bus interface also differs. The 610M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R7 M265 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The 610M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and a 15 W TDP. The R7 M265 has no TDP listed and no slot width or power connector information. The 610M's display outputs are described as portable device dependent, while the R7 M265 has no display output information.

The 610M's memory clock is listed as system shared, whereas the R7 M265's memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R7 M265 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the 610M supports Vulkan 1.4, and the R7 M265 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The 610M builds on RDNA 2.0, AMD's modern graphics architecture, using the Mendocino chip. The R7 M265 uses GCN 1.0, the original Graphics Core Next architecture, with the Opal chip. The 610M's generation is listed as Navi II IGP (Mendocino Mobile), while the R7 M265 is from the Gem System (R7 M200) generation.

The 610M's RDNA 2.0 architecture brings 2 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the R7 M265. The 610M also supports FP16 compute with a rating of 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1), while the R7 M265 has no FP16 figure listed. The 610M's FP32 rating is 486.4 GFLOPS, and the R7 M265's is 633.6 GFLOPS, meaning the older card has a 30.2% higher theoretical FP32 throughput despite its much lower clocks.

The 610M's pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s. The R7 M265's pixel rate is 6.600 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 19.80 GTexel/s. So the 610M has a higher pixel fill rate by 15.2%, while the R7 M265 has a higher texture fill rate by 30.3%. These differences reflect the core configuration: the R7 M265 has 3x the TMUs (24 versus 8) and 2x the ROPs (8 versus 4), but the 610M's higher clocks partially compensate.

The 610M uses a 6 nm process, which allows a much smaller transistor footprint relative to performance, though the die size is actually larger at 100 mm² versus 77 mm². The R7 M265's transistor density is listed at 12.3M per mm², while the 610M has no density figure. The 610M's release date is in 2022, while the R7 M265's release date is in 2014, an 8-year gap that explains the architectural evolution.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct use cases. The AMD Radeon R7 M265 is the better choice for OpenCL compute workloads. Its 4929 OpenCL score beats the 610M by 8%, and its higher shading unit count (384 versus 128) gives it a raw compute advantage that the benchmark confirms. Users running OpenCL-based applications should favor the R7 M265.

The AMD Radeon 610M is the better choice for modern API support and overall database standing. Its Vulkan score of 6353 demonstrates strong performance in newer graphics APIs, and its 32nd percentile ranking beats the R7 M265's 29th percentile. The 610M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M265 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 610M's 15 W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained integrated designs, whereas the R7 M265 has no power figure listed.

For gamers or users running current titles with Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the 610M is the logical pick. For legacy OpenCL compute tasks or workloads that scale with shader count, the R7 M265 holds the edge. The 610M's average benchmark score of 5444 versus 4929 for the R7 M265 suggests that, across multiple tests, the 610M is the faster overall part, but the direct OpenCL result cannot be ignored. The R7 M265 wins the one test where both were measured, and that is the only head-to-head evidence available.