AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260 Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 M230 and AMD Radeon R7 M260 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD’s Gem System generation, but the benchmark data reveals a surprising hierarchy: the R5 M230 wins the only direct comparison, despite the R7 M260 having a newer architecture and more compute units. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R5 M230 scores 4577 against the R7 M260’s 3708, a 23.4% advantage that flips the expected performance order based on specifications alone. This head-to-head result is the single most important fact for anyone evaluating these two GPUs, as it shows that architectural generation and raw hardware counts do not automatically translate into higher benchmark scores in this pairing.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is decisive. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 delivers 4577 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 trails at 3708 points, giving the R5 M230 a 23.4% lead. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial gap that places the older, smaller GPU firmly ahead in compute workloads. For context, the R5 M230’s score puts it nearly level with the AMD Radeon RX 560, which averages 4569 points (a 0.2% difference), and slightly ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 points (0.4% ahead). On the other side, the R7 M260’s 3708 OpenCL result sits well below these rivals, with the nearest competitor being the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4505 points, which beats it by 0.1%.

The R7 M260 does post a secondary Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289, but there is no corresponding Vulkan result for the R5 M230 in the data, so this cannot be compared directly. In the only apples-to-apples test, the R5 M230 wins outright, and the win count reflects this: the R5 M230 takes 1 win, the R7 M260 takes 0. The delta of 23.4% is the largest margin recorded between these two parts in any shared workload, and it dominates the narrative. A user looking at raw OpenCL performance should expect the R5 M230 to complete compute tasks significantly faster than the R7 M260, even though the latter has a higher transistor count and more shading units.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on benchmark results, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 wins in the only tested category: OpenCL compute performance. Its 4577 score against the R7 M260’s 3708 means that for any application leveraging OpenCL—such as video encoding, image processing, or general-purpose GPU compute—the R5 M230 provides a 23.4% performance advantage. This makes it the preferred choice for users whose primary workload is compute-heavy and who rely on OpenCL APIs. The R5 M230 also sits in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the R7 M260’s 26th percentile, reinforcing that its overall standing is marginally better despite the R7 M260’s newer design.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its Vulkan score of 5289 is present in the data, but without a matching R5 M230 Vulkan result, it cannot be credited with a win in that category. The only place where the R7 M260 shows an advantage is in its specification sheet: it has a higher base clock (940 MHz vs. no base clock listed for the R5 M230), a boost clock of 980 MHz, and more shading units (384 vs. 320), but these do not translate into benchmark victories. Users prioritizing Vulkan performance would need to assume the R7 M260 is better based on its score alone, but the lack of a direct comparison means this remains unverified. For practical purposes, the R5 M230 is the winner in every measurable head-to-head scenario.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 23.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s 3708 in the same test.

Q: Does the R7 M260 have any benchmark where it beats the R5 M230?

A: No. The R7 M260 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289, but the R5 M230 has no Vulkan result in the data, so no direct comparison exists. In the only shared benchmark (OpenCL), the R5 M230 wins.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to the AMD Radeon RX 560?

A: The R5 M230 scores 4577, which is 0.2% higher than the RX 560’s 4569 average. The R7 M260 scores 3708 in OpenCL, which is 1.5% lower than the RX 560’s average.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The R5 M230 has an average benchmark score of 4577 (based on its single OpenCL result). The R7 M260 has an average of 4499, which combines its OpenCL and Vulkan scores.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile, while the R7 M260 is at the 26th percentile, meaning the R5 M230 ranks slightly higher overall.

Q: Is the R7 M260’s newer architecture reflected in its benchmark performance?

A: No. The R7 M260 uses GCN 3.0 compared to the R5 M230’s GCN 1.0, but the R5 M230 still wins the OpenCL test by 23.4%, indicating that architectural generation alone does not determine performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications, starting with the chip and architecture. The R5 M230 uses the Jet chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip with GCN 3.0. Transistor counts differ significantly: the R5 M230 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, whereas the R7 M260 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical (12.3M / mm² vs. 12.4M / mm²), but the R7 M260’s larger die houses more hardware.

Clock speeds are another differentiator. The R5 M230 has no listed base or boost clock, while the R7 M260 has a base clock of 940 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the R5 M230 running at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) and the R7 M260 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R5 M230’s higher memory clock gives it 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, slightly above the R7 M260’s 14.40 GB/s, despite both using 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Compute unit counts favor the R7 M260: it has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, versus the R5 M230’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates to higher theoretical rates for the R7 M260: pixel rate of 7.840 GPixel/s vs. 4.880 GPixel/s, texture rate of 23.52 GTexel/s vs. 12.20 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 752.6 GFLOPS vs. 390.4 GFLOPS. The R7 M260 also supports FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1), while the R5 M230 has no FP16 listing. Finally, the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M230 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is clear: the R5 M230 is built on GCN 1.0, while the R7 M260 uses GCN 3.0. This is a generational leap within AMD’s Graphics Core Next lineup, with GCN 3.0 introducing improvements over the original GCN design. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the R7 M260’s Topaz chip is substantially larger at 125 mm² compared to the R5 M230’s Jet chip at 56 mm², and it crams over twice as many transistors (1,550 million vs. 690 million). The R7 M260 also benefits from a higher shading unit count (384 vs. 320) and more TMUs (24 vs. 20), which theoretically boosts texture and pixel throughput.

In terms of API support, both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, but they differ in DirectX: the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M230 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the R7 M260 is better positioned for newer DirectX 12 titles that require feature level 12_0. The R7 M260 is the only one with a listed boost clock (980 MHz) and base clock (940 MHz), while the R5 M230’s clocks are unlisted, suggesting a fixed or lower operating frequency. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, and both are end-of-life products, with the R5 M230 releasing in January 2014 and the R7 M260 in June 2014. The R5 M230 is designated as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the R7 M260’s slot width and display outputs are unlisted.

The Verdict

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is the clear winner for OpenCL compute workloads. Its 4577 Geekbench OpenCL score beats the R7 M260’s 3708 by 23.4%, and it holds a higher percentile ranking (27th vs. 26th). For users running OpenCL-based applications, the R5 M230 is the safer choice, delivering measurably better performance despite its older GCN 1.0 architecture and fewer shading units. The R5 M230 also edges out the AMD Radeon RX 560 by 0.2% and the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 0.4%, placing it in respectable company.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260, however, should not be dismissed outright. Its GCN 3.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_0) support make it more future-proof for modern gaming APIs, and its Vulkan score of 5289 suggests strong performance in Vulkan titles—though this cannot be verified against the R5 M230. Its higher theoretical throughput (752.6 GFLOPS FP32 vs. 390.4 GFLOPS) and larger transistor budget indicate a more capable hardware foundation, but the data shows that this does not translate into OpenCL wins. Users who prioritize DirectX 12 or Vulkan compatibility may prefer the R7 M260, but those seeking proven compute performance should select the R5 M230. The verdict is unambiguous: in the only head-to-head test, the R5 M230 wins, and that is the fact that matters most.