AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260 Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 M255 and AMD Radeon R7 M260 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD’s Gem System generation, built on the same Topaz chip and GCN 3.0 architecture. Despite sharing a common foundation, benchmark results show a clear split: the R5 M255 dominates in OpenCL compute workloads, while the R7 M260 takes the lead in Vulkan graphics performance. The data reveals two distinct performance profiles, with the average benchmark score favoring the R5 M255 at 4788 versus 4499 for the R7 M260, a difference of roughly 6.4%.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M255 is the compute-oriented part of this pairing. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4650 is 25.4% higher than the R7 M260’s 3708, making it the clear choice for workloads that leverage general-purpose GPU compute through OpenCL. This advantage is substantial enough that the R5 M255 sits at the 28th percentile across all GPUs, while the R7 M260 trails at the 26th percentile. In practical terms, the R5 M255’s OpenCL result places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB’s average score of 4791, and it edges out the AMD Radeon R5 M335 by 0.8% — though these rivals are far more powerful in other contexts, the R5 M255’s compute score is competitive in this narrow metric.

The R7 M260, conversely, wins in Vulkan. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289 beats the R5 M255’s 4925 by 6.9%. This is a meaningful margin for graphics API performance, suggesting the R7 M260 handles Vulkan-based rendering tasks with greater efficiency despite its lower raw compute score in OpenCL. The R7 M260’s nearest rivals in average score include the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4505 (−0.1%), Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (−1.3%), and AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (−1.5%), all of which are within 1.7% of its average, indicating its position in a tightly clustered performance band.

The overall win count is tied at one benchmark each, but the magnitude of the R5 M255’s OpenCL victory is larger than the R7 M260’s Vulkan margin. The R5 M255’s 25.4% lead in OpenCL is a decisive gap, whereas the R7 M260’s 6.9% Vulkan edge is more modest. For users prioritizing compute tasks like OpenCL-accelerated applications, the R5 M255 offers a stronger foundation; for Vulkan-centric gaming or graphics workloads, the R7 M260 provides the better result.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has an average benchmark score of 4788, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 4499. This gives the R5 M255 a 6.4% advantage overall.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The R5 M255 scores 4650 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 25.4% higher than the R7 M260’s 3708. The R5 M255 wins this test decisively.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The R7 M260 scores 5289 in Geekbench Vulkan, outperforming the R5 M255’s 4925 by 6.9%. The R7 M260 wins this test.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same chip?

A: Yes, both the R5 M255 and R7 M260 use the Topaz chip, built on GCN 3.0 architecture with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die at TSMC’s 28 nm process node.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The R5 M255 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 2 GB DDR3 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), yielding 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M260 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The R7 M260 has higher clocks: 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost, compared to the R5 M255’s 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. This contributes to its higher pixel rate of 7.840 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a stark difference. The R5 M255 posts 4650 against the R7 M260’s 3708, a 25.4% lead. This is the single largest performance gap between the two in any measured benchmark. The R5 M255’s advantage here likely stems from its memory configuration: a 128-bit bus delivering 32.00 GB/s bandwidth, more than double the R7 M260’s 14.40 GB/s from its 64-bit bus. Compute workloads often scale with memory bandwidth, and the data reflects that with a substantial score differential.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn. The R7 M260 scores 5289, beating the R5 M255’s 4925 by 6.9%. This is a notable reversal given that the R7 M260 has lower raw memory bandwidth and lower OpenCL performance. The R7 M260’s higher clock speeds — 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost versus 925 MHz and 940 MHz — may play a role, as Vulkan workloads can be more sensitive to shader clock rates. The R7 M260 also achieves a higher pixel rate of 7.840 GPixel/s and texture rate of 23.52 GTexel/s, versus the R5 M255’s 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s, which could translate to better rasterization performance in this API.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the split: the R5 M255’s 4788 average is 6.4% above the R7 M260’s 4499, but this average masks the divergent strengths. The R5 M255’s nearest rival in average score is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4791 (−0.1%), a remarkably close figure, while the R7 M260’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4505 (−0.1%). Both GPUs cluster with other low-end mobile parts, but the R5 M255’s OpenCL result pushes its average higher.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ most significantly in memory configuration. The R5 M255 features a 128-bit memory bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M260 has a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the R5 M255’s memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus the R7 M260’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This gives the R5 M255 more than double the memory bandwidth, a critical factor in its OpenCL dominance.

Clock speeds also differ. The R7 M260 runs at 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost, compared to the R5 M255’s 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. This 15–40 MHz advantage translates to higher fill rates: the R7 M260 achieves 7.840 GPixel/s and 23.52 GTexel/s, versus 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s for the R5 M255. The FP32 compute also favors the R7 M260 at 752.6 GFLOPS, slightly ahead of the R5 M255’s 721.9 GFLOPS.

Both GPUs share identical core configurations: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. They also have the same API support, including DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The release dates differ, with the R7 M260 launching earlier on 2014-06-10 and the R5 M255 following on 2014-10-11. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same Topaz chip using GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. The die size is identical at 125 mm², with 1,550 million transistors and a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². There are no differences in the fundamental architecture — the chips are essentially the same silicon with different configuration bins.

The architectural similarities extend to the feature set. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both support the same DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 APIs. The FP16 performance matches FP32 at a 1:1 ratio for both, with the R7 M260 slightly ahead at 752.6 GFLOPS versus 721.9 GFLOPS. The R7 M260’s higher clock speeds are the only architectural-level difference, as the core counts, memory type, and bus interface are otherwise identical.

The generation designation is the same — both belong to the Gem System (R5 M200 and R7 M200 respectively) and share the same predecessor (Solar System) and successor (Polaris Mobile). The practical differences in performance arise entirely from clock speeds and memory bus width, not from architectural innovations.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the better choice for compute-focused tasks. Its 25.4% lead in OpenCL and 6.4% higher average benchmark score make it the stronger all-around performer in raw throughput. The 128-bit memory bus providing 32.00 GB/s bandwidth is the decisive factor, enabling the R5 M255 to outperform the R7 M260 in memory-intensive workloads despite similar core counts.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260, however, is preferable for Vulkan-based graphics. Its 6.9% higher Vulkan score, combined with higher clock speeds and fill rates, suggests better real-world rendering performance in Vulkan titles. The R7 M260’s 5289 Vulkan score is its standout result, and it edges out the R5 M255 in this specific API.

For users who know their workloads: OpenCL compute favors the R5 M255; Vulkan rendering favors the R7 M260. The R5 M255’s overall average score of 4788 versus 4499 makes it the default recommendation for mixed usage, but the R7 M260’s Vulkan advantage cannot be ignored for graphics-heavy applications. Both are end-of-life products with comparable architecture, so the choice ultimately hinges on which benchmark metric matters more for the intended use case. In a tie on benchmark wins, the R5 M255’s larger margin of victory in OpenCL gives it a slight edge in overall performance assessment.