AMD Radeon HD 8750M vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two AMD mobile GPUs is narrow but clear. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M wins the only shared benchmark in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 5970 against the R7 M260X’s 5690. That is a 4.9% lead for the older part, and it is the sole head-to-head victory recorded. The R7 M260X has no wins in the database, but it does have an additional benchmark result that the HD 8750M lacks: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4631. That means the R7 M260X is the only one of the two with any Vulkan performance measurement at all, which matters if your workload or game targets that API.

Breaking down the use cases from the data: for OpenCL compute tasks, the HD 8750M is the stronger choice. Its higher clock speeds drive a higher FP32 throughput of 633.6 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS, and it also leads in pixel rate (6.600 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s) and texture rate (19.80 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s). The R7 M260X counters with a much faster memory subsystem: GDDR5 running at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed yields 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the HD 8750M’s 28.80 GB/s from DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). So for bandwidth-sensitive tasks, the R7 M260X has a structural advantage that the OpenCL score does not fully reflect.

The percentile placement reinforces the split. The HD 8750M sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R7 M260X sits at the 30th percentile. The HD 8750M’s average benchmark score is 5970, identical to its OpenCL result, while the R7 M260X’s average is pulled down to 5161 by including the lower Vulkan score of 4631. In practical terms, if you mostly run OpenCL-accelerated applications, the HD 8750M is the pick. If you need Vulkan support with a measured result, only the R7 M260X offers that in the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690. The HD 8750M leads by 4.9%.

Q: Does the R7 M260X have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the only shared head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 M260X loses to the HD 8750M. However, the R7 M260X has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4631, which the HD 8750M does not have recorded.

Q: How do their memory types and bandwidth compare?

A: The HD 8750M uses 1024 MB of DDR3 with a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. The R7 M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 with the same 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s, which is more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes. Both are built by TSMC on a 28 nm process node, with 950 million transistors and a 77 mm² die size.

Q: What is the difference in clock speeds?

A: The HD 8750M has a base clock of 775 MHz and a boost clock of 825 MHz. The R7 M260X has a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost clock of 715 MHz. The HD 8750M is higher in both.

Q: Which GPU is newer?

A: The HD 8750M was released on 2013-02-25, while the R7 M260X was released on 2015-12-05. The R7 M260X is the later release by nearly three years.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one shared benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970, and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690, giving the HD 8750M a 4.9% delta. That is a modest but consistent lead, and it aligns with the clock speed advantage. The HD 8750M runs its shaders at 775 MHz base and 825 MHz boost, while the R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. With identical shader counts (384), TMUs (24), and ROPs (8), the higher clocks translate directly into higher throughput numbers. The HD 8750M reaches 633.6 GFLOPS FP32, 6.600 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 19.80 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 549.1 GFLOPS, 5.720 GPixel/s, and 17.16 GTexel/s for the R7 M260X.

The R7 M260X does have a second, non-shared benchmark: Geekbench Vulkan at 4631. There is no Vulkan result for the HD 8750M in the database, so it cannot be compared directly. But this result matters for the R7 M260X’s average. Its average benchmark score is 5161, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 5690 because the Vulkan result of 4631 drags the average down. The HD 8750M’s average is 5970, exactly matching its single OpenCL score.

Looking at nearest rivals gives context. The HD 8750M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.2% behind the HD 8750M), followed by the Quadro K4000M at 5986 (0.3% behind), the Quadro K620M at 5957 (0.2% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955 (0.3% ahead). The R7 M260X sits near the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211 (1% behind the R7 M260X) and the GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (1.4% behind), while it leads the Quadro K3100M at 5154 (0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063 (1.9% ahead). So the HD 8750M competes in a slightly higher performance tier than the R7 M260X, even though both are low-end mobile parts.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share a great deal, but the differences are where the performance story lives. Both have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, 8 ROPs, 1024 MB of memory, and a 128-bit memory bus. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8 and support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The differences start with clocks. The HD 8750M has a base clock of 775 MHz and a boost clock of 825 MHz. The R7 M260X has a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost clock of 715 MHz. That is a 155 MHz gap at base and a 110 MHz gap at boost.

Memory is the other major difference. The HD 8750M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 28.80 GB/s. The R7 M260X uses GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s. The R7 M260X more than doubles the memory bandwidth, which is a significant advantage for texture-heavy workloads despite its lower compute clocks.

The R7 M260X lists a power connector of “None” and display outputs as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the HD 8750M leaves those fields unlisted. The R7 M260X also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 4631, which the HD 8750M lacks. Release dates differ: the HD 8750M launched on 2013-02-25, and the R7 M260X launched on 2015-12-05. Both are marked end-of-life. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on AMD’s Graphics Core Next 1.0 architecture, and both use the same manufacturing details: TSMC 28 nm process, 950 million transistors, 77 mm² die size, and a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The chip names differ. The HD 8750M uses the Mars chip, while the R7 M260X uses the Opal chip. Despite the different names, the core configuration is identical: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor cores on either part.

The generations are different. The HD 8750M belongs to the Solar System generation (HD 8700M series), while the R7 M260X belongs to the Gem System generation (R7 M200 series). In the database’s lineage, the HD 8750M’s predecessor is listed as London and its successor as Gem System, which is the same generation family that the R7 M260X belongs to. The R7 M260X’s predecessor is Solar System, which is the HD 8750M’s generation, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. So the R7 M260X is effectively a later iteration within the same GCN 1.0 family, using the same transistor count and die size but with a different memory type and lower clocks.

The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M260X has a measured Vulkan score, but the HD 8750M does not have one in the database, so it is unclear whether the absence reflects a hardware limitation or simply a lack of testing. Given both parts share the same architecture and API list, the Vulkan result for the R7 M260X suggests the architecture is capable of running Vulkan workloads, but no comparable number exists for the HD 8750M.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear if narrow conclusion. If your priority is raw compute throughput in OpenCL, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M is the better card. It wins the only shared benchmark by 4.9%, scores 5970 versus 5690, sits at the 34th percentile versus the 30th, and delivers higher FP32 (633.6 GFLOPS), pixel rate (6.600 GPixel/s), and texture rate (19.80 GTexel/s). Its higher base and boost clocks (775 MHz and 825 MHz versus 620 MHz and 715 MHz) make that lead straightforward to explain. The HD 8750M also has a higher average benchmark score of 5970 against the R7 M260X’s 5161, though that gap is inflated by the R7 M260X’s lower Vulkan result.

The R7 M260X is not without a case, but it is a narrower one. Its GDDR5 memory delivers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the HD 8750M’s 28.80 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound, that bandwidth advantage could flip some real-world tasks. It also has a recorded Vulkan score of 4631, which is the only Vulkan measurement between the two. If you specifically need a GPU with a verified Vulkan result, the R7 M260X is the only option in this pairing.

For a builder choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the decision hinges on the workload. OpenCL compute and higher raw throughput point to the HD 8750M. Memory bandwidth and Vulkan support point to the R7 M260X. The HD 8750M wins the head-to-head benchmark and occupies a higher percentile, so it is the safer default. The R7 M260X is the specialist pick for bandwidth-heavy or Vulkan-specific tasks. There is no price data in the database, so the choice comes down purely to measured performance and feature support.