AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, designed for modern thin-and-light laptops as part of the Phoenix chip. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is an older discrete mobile GPU based on GCN 1.0, aimed at entry-level gaming notebooks from a prior generation. The data paints a decisive picture: the 760M outperforms the R7 M260X substantially across every shared benchmark, with the gap widening dramatically in modern API workloads. This analysis relies solely on recorded database measurements, architectural specifications, and performance percentiles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head comparisons between these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon 760M scores 20,255, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5,690. That is a 256% difference, meaning the 760M delivers roughly three and a half times the compute performance in this general-purpose GPU test. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in raw throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the results are even more lopsided. The 760M records 30,336, against 4,631 for the R7 M260X, a delta of 555.1%. The Vulkan API is designed for modern, low-overhead rendering, and the 760M’s RDNA 3.0 architecture exploits it far more effectively than the older GCN 1.0 design. A score over 30,000 in Vulkan places the 760M in a completely different performance class, while the R7 M260X struggles to reach even 5,000.

The average benchmark score across all recorded tests reinforces this hierarchy. The 760M has an average score of 6,019, while the R7 M260X averages 5,161. That is a 16.6% gap in overall performance, though this average includes tests where the R7 M260X has no data. The direct head-to-head results, which use identical workloads, show the true magnitude of the difference. The 760M wins both recorded head-to-head matchups; the R7 M260X wins none.

Percentile rankings place the 760M in the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R7 M260X sits in the 30th percentile. The 760M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (average score 6,001, only 0.3% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (average score 6,000, also 0.3% behind). The R7 M260X, by contrast, is closest to the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (average score 5,154, 0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (average score 5,063, 1.9% behind). In practical terms, the 760M competes with entry-level discrete cards from a few years ago, while the R7 M260X aligns with older workstation and low-end desktop parts.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The AMD Radeon 760M is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,390 million transistors packed into a 178 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The R7 M260X uses a 28 nm TSMC process, with only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The 760M carries more than 26 times the transistor count of the R7 M260X, and the manufacturing node difference alone explains a large portion of the performance gap.

The 760M is based on RDNA 3.0, part of the Navi III IGP generation, while the R7 M260X uses GCN 1.0 from the Gem System generation. RDNA 3.0 brings significant architectural improvements in shader efficiency, cache behavior, and API support. The 760M features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. It also includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the R7 M260X. The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no ray tracing hardware at all.

Clock speeds show a similar divergence. The 760M runs at a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2,599 MHz. The R7 M260X has a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost of 715 MHz. The 760M’s boost clock is more than 3.6 times higher than the R7 M260X’s boost clock, and it sustains that frequency across a much larger shader array. Memory configurations also differ fundamentally. The 760M uses system-shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The R7 M260X has 1,024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The 760M’s shared memory approach leverages fast system RAM, while the R7 M260X relies on older dedicated VRAM with a fixed bandwidth ceiling.

API support further separates the two. The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 760M’s newer Vulkan version and full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set enable modern rendering techniques, including ray tracing, that the R7 M260X cannot handle. Power consumption also differs: the 760M is rated at 15 W, while the R7 M260X has no recorded TDP in the database. The 760M is an integrated GPU with no power connectors and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface; the R7 M260X uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and also has no power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute-heavy workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M is dramatically faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 20,255 versus 5,690 for the R7 M260X, a 256% advantage. This indicates the 760M handles general-purpose GPU tasks like video encoding and physics simulations far more effectively.

Q: How do the two compare in modern graphics APIs?

A: The 760M is even further ahead in Vulkan. It scores 30,336 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the R7 M260X scores 4,631, a 555.1% difference. The 760M also supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the R7 M260X is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: Does the R7 M260X have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: The R7 M260X has a fixed 64.00 GB/s from its 128-bit GDDR5 bus with 1,024 MB of dedicated memory. The 760M uses system-shared memory, so its bandwidth is system dependent. In practical terms, the 760M’s much higher clock speeds and newer architecture overcome any theoretical memory latency advantage the R7 M260X might have.

Q: Can the 760M handle ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 760M includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature built into its RDNA 3.0 architecture. The R7 M260X has no ray tracing cores, so it cannot accelerate ray-traced effects at all.

Q: Which GPU has a longer production lifespan?

A: The 760M is listed as Active, while the R7 M260X is End-of-life. The 760M was released on January 30, 2024, and is still in production. The R7 M260X was released on December 5, 2015, and has been discontinued.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against the rest of the database?

A: The 760M sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6,019. The R7 M260X is in the 30th percentile, with an average score of 5,161. The 760M’s nearest rivals are the RX 6400 and GTX 770M, both within 0.3% of its score.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior GPU in every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 256% and 555.1%, has a higher average benchmark score (6,019 versus 5,161), and occupies a higher percentile ranking (35th versus 30th). Its architectural advantages, including a 4 nm process, 25,390 million transistors, 512 shading units, 8 ray tracing cores, and a 2,599 MHz boost clock, make it a fundamentally newer and more capable part.

The R7 M260X, despite being a discrete GPU with dedicated VRAM, simply cannot compete with the integrated 760M. Its 28 nm process, 950 million transistors, 384 shading units, and 715 MHz boost clock place it in a different performance tier. The 760M’s nearest rivals in the database are discrete cards like the RX 6400 and GTX 770M, which means it punches at or above the level of older entry-level dedicated GPUs. The R7 M260X, by contrast, sits alongside workstation parts like the Quadro K3100M and low-end desktop cards like the R7 240.

For anyone choosing between these two, the 760M is the only rational pick. It offers modern API support, ray tracing capability, and performance that is several times higher across all shared benchmarks. The R7 M260X is a legacy product that should only be considered if it is already installed in a system and replacement is not an option.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every technical specification. The 760M uses a 4 nm process node, while the R7 M260X uses 28 nm. Transistor count is 25,390 million versus 950 million. Die size is 178 mm² versus 77 mm². Transistor density is 142.6 million per square millimeter versus 12.3 million. Base clock is 800 MHz versus 620 MHz. Boost clock is 2,599 MHz versus 715 MHz. The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the R7 M260X has 384, 24, and 8, respectively. The 760M has 8 ray tracing cores; the R7 M260X has none.

Pixel rate is 41.58 GPixel/s for the 760M, versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the R7 M260X. Texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.323 TFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS. The 760M also supports FP16 at 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the R7 M260X has no recorded FP16 capability. Memory type is system shared for the 760M, versus 1,024 MB of GDDR5 for the R7 M260X. Bus width is system shared versus 128-bit. Bandwidth is system dependent versus 64.00 GB/s.

Power draw is 15 W for the 760M, with no TDP recorded for the R7 M260X. The 760M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface; the R7 M260X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the 760M, versus portable device dependent for the R7 M260X. API support differs: the 760M has DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the R7 M260X has DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Production status is Active versus End-of-life. Release dates are January 30, 2024 versus December 5, 2015. The 760M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP; the R7 M260X’s predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M wins in every recorded benchmark category. It is the clear choice for modern gaming, especially titles that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate or Vulkan. Its 8 ray tracing cores allow for hardware-accelerated ray-traced effects, which the R7 M260X cannot deliver at all. The 760M’s FP32 throughput of 5.323 TFLOPS makes it suitable for lighter creative workloads, video encoding, and general compute tasks. Its 15 W TDP means it fits into power-constrained thin-and-light laptops without sacrificing performance.

The R7 M260X has no benchmark wins in the database. Its only potential advantage is the dedicated 1,024 MB of GDDR5 memory, which provides a fixed 64.00 GB/s bandwidth that does not depend on system RAM. In a system with slow or poorly configured memory, the R7 M260X might avoid some of the shared-memory bottlenecks that can affect integrated GPUs. However, the recorded data shows that even with this dedicated memory, the R7 M260X is vastly slower in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.

For use cases like legacy DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 titles, the R7 M260X may still function adequately, but the 760M’s PassMark DirectX 9 score of 65 and DirectX 10 score of 19 indicate it handles older APIs as well. The 760M also has a PassMark G3D score of 5,310, a G2D score of 890, and a GPU compute score of 2,840. The R7 M260X has no recorded PassMark scores, further limiting its verifiable strengths. In any practical comparison, the 760M is the better GPU for every workload, from modern gaming to compute acceleration, and the R7 M260X should be considered obsolete.