AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon R7 M440 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M is the decisive winner in every recorded head-to-head comparison. The data shows a clean sweep: 2 benchmark wins for the 760M, 0 for the Radeon R7 M440. This is not a close contest by any metric available in the database. The 760M's advantage is so large that the R7 M440 cannot compete in any workload measured here.

For compute-heavy tasks, the 760M dominates. The Geekbench OpenCL result shows a 288.5% delta, meaning the 760M scores nearly four times higher than the R7 M440. This translates to real-world advantages in GPU-accelerated applications such as video encoding, image processing, and general compute workloads. The R7 M440, with its older GCN 3.0 architecture, simply cannot keep pace.

For graphics API performance, the gap widens further. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a 427.5% delta in favor of the 760M. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API, and the 760M's RDNA 3.0 architecture is built to take full advantage of it. The R7 M440's older architecture and lower feature set make it a poor fit for Vulkan-based games and applications. If a user's workload involves modern APIs, the 760M is the only sensible choice.

The R7 M440 does not have a single recorded win in any benchmark. Its best case scenario is simply being less far behind in OpenCL than in Vulkan, but even there it loses by a massive margin. For anyone choosing between these two, the data is unambiguous: the 760M is the superior part in every measurable way.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 760M in OpenCL compute?

A: The 760M scores 20,255 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R7 M440 scores 5,214. This is a 288.5% advantage for the 760M.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The 760M scores 30,336 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 5,751 for the R7 M440. That is a 427.5% delta, making the 760M more than five times faster in this API.

Q: Which GPU has better driver support for modern APIs?

A: The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The R7 M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The 760M is the more modern part with access to ray tracing cores.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 760M has an average benchmark score of 6,019, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The R7 M440 averages 5,483, placing it in the 32nd percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The 760M has 512 shading units, while the R7 M440 has 320. The 760M also has 32 texture mapping units versus 20, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: Is the R7 M440 still in production?

A: No. The database lists the R7 M440 as "End-of-life," while the 760M is listed as "Active." The R7 M440 was released in 2016, and the 760M in 2024.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two direct comparisons available in the database are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Both show overwhelming wins for the 760M.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the 760M scores 20,255 points. The R7 M440 scores 5,214 points. This yields a delta of 288.5% in favor of the 760M. To put that in perspective, the R7 M440 would need to nearly quadruple its score to match the 760M. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in compute capability.

The Vulkan test is even more lopsided. The 760M posts 30,336 points, while the R7 M440 manages only 5,751 points. The delta is 427.5%. This means the 760M is over five times faster in Vulkan. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that scales well with hardware features like async compute and modern shader execution. The RDNA 3.0 architecture in the 760M excels here, while the older GCN 3.0 design in the R7 M440 struggles.

Looking at the broader database context, the 760M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (average score 6,001, delta 0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000, 0.3%), and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996, 0.4%). The 760M sits slightly above these parts. On the other side, the R7 M440's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5,467, 0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501, -0.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5,508, -0.5%). The R7 M440 is competitive with these older parts, but that is a much lower performance tier.

The 760M's average score of 6,019 is 536 points higher than the R7 M440's 5,483. That is a 9.8% advantage in average score, but the head-to-head deltas are far larger because the specific tests favor the newer architecture. In practical terms, the 760M is not just a little better; it is in a different performance class.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification that matters. The 760M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The R7 M440 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with only 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The 760M has a transistor density of 142.6 million per mm², versus 12.4 million per mm² for the R7 M440. That is a massive difference in manufacturing efficiency.

Clock speeds are another major separator. The 760M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2,599 MHz. The R7 M440 has no listed base or boost clocks, but its memory runs at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). The 760M's memory is system shared, meaning its bandwidth is system dependent. The R7 M440 has 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

The rendering pipelines are also different. The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M440 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The 760M also features 8 ray tracing cores, which the R7 M440 lacks entirely. Pixel rate for the 760M is 41.58 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s. The R7 M440 manages only 7.128 GPixel/s and 17.82 GTexel/s.

The 760M's FP32 compute is 5.323 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same rate (1:1). The R7 M440's FP32 is 570.2 GFLOPS, with FP16 also at 570.2 GFLOPS. That is a 9.3x advantage for the 760M in raw compute throughput. The 760M is rated at 15 W TDP, while the R7 M440 has no TDP listed in the database.

The bus interface differs as well. The 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R7 M440 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This affects data transfer speeds to the CPU, though the impact is less critical for an IGP. Both are listed as IGP slot width, with the 760M having no power connectors and motherboard-dependent display outputs. The R7 M440's display outputs are portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two parts is generational. The 760M is based on RDNA 3.0, part of the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. The R7 M440 is based on GCN 3.0, from the Gem System (R7 M400) generation. These are completely different design philosophies.

RDNA 3.0 is a modern, scalable architecture designed for high efficiency and performance per watt. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading. The 760M has 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing in supported games. The R7 M440, with GCN 3.0, supports only DirectX 12 (12_0), which lacks these advanced features.

The 760M's Vulkan support is version 1.4, while the R7 M440 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. This means the 760M can run newer Vulkan extensions and has better compatibility with current titles. The 760M also has a higher transistor count and much higher density, allowing for more complex execution units in a smaller area.

The R7 M440's GCN 3.0 architecture is a predecessor to the graphics core next design, but it lacks modern compute features like async compute in the same efficient manner. Its 28 nm process limits clock speeds and power efficiency. The 760M's 4 nm process allows a boost clock of 2,599 MHz, which is more than double what the R7 M440's older design could realistically achieve.

The 760M's FP16 performance matches its FP32 performance at a 1:1 ratio, which is a hallmark of RDNA 3.0's unified shader design. The R7 M440 also has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, but at a much lower absolute level. The 760M's texture and pixel rates are 4.7x and 5.8x higher, respectively, reflecting the larger TMU and ROP counts.

The R7 M440's memory is dedicated DDR3 at 14.40 GB/s, which is slow by modern standards. The 760M uses system shared memory, which can be faster depending on the host system's RAM. In a modern laptop with fast DDR5, the 760M's bandwidth could be several times higher than the R7 M440's. This makes the 760M more future-proof for memory-intensive workloads.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior GPU in every recorded benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests by massive margins, has a higher average benchmark score, and sits in a higher percentile of all GPUs. The 760M is the only rational choice for any new system.

The 760M is a modern, active product built on 4 nm RDNA 3.0, with 512 shading units, 8 ray tracing cores, and 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. It supports the latest APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. Its nearest rivals in the database are parts like the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA Quadro P2000, which are discrete GPUs, yet the 760M holds its own against them.

The R7 M440 is an end-of-life product from 2016, based on 28 nm GCN 3.0. It has 320 shading units, no ray tracing support, and only 570.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute. Its 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus provides 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, which is a fraction of what the 760M can access via system shared memory. The R7 M440's nearest rivals are older mobile parts like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and NVIDIA GeForce MX130, which places it in a much lower performance tier.

For a user building a new system or upgrading a laptop, the 760M is the obvious pick. It offers modern features, high compute throughput, and excellent API support. The R7 M440 should only be considered if it is already installed in an existing system and the user has no other option, but even then, the performance gap is so large that upgrading to a 760M-based platform would be a transformative change. The database shows no scenario where the R7 M440 wins, so the verdict is simple: choose the 760M.