AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits the two mobile GPUs evenly, with one win apiece across the two recorded tests. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X takes the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively, scoring 5690 against the R5 M255's 4650. That is a 22.4% advantage, a substantial margin in compute-oriented workloads that leverage OpenCL. The R7 M260X's average benchmark score of 5161 also sits higher than the R5 M255's 4788, and it holds a 30th percentile ranking among all GPUs compared to the R5 M255's 28th percentile.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 counters in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 4925 against the R7 M260X's 4631, a 6% edge. This indicates the newer architecture handles Vulkan API workloads more efficiently, despite the R5 M255's lower overall average score. The R5 M255 also shows competitive positioning against its nearest rivals, sitting within 1.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX and just 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M335.

For use-case selection, the R7 M260X is the stronger choice for OpenCL-based compute tasks, where its 22.4% lead translates to faster execution in applications that rely on this API. The R5 M255, by contrast, is better suited for Vulkan-centric workloads, including modern game titles and applications that leverage Vulkan's lower overhead. The R7 M260X's higher average score suggests broader overall capability, but the R5 M255's Vulkan advantage should not be discounted for users prioritizing that specific API.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X, with an average benchmark score of 5161 compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4788.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two?

A: The R7 M260X leads by 22.4% in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 5690 versus the R5 M255's 4650.

Q: Does the R5 M255 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the R5 M255 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 4925, which is 6% higher than the R7 M260X's 4631.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The R7 M260X's closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, with a 0.1% delta. The R5 M255's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, with a -0.1% delta.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The R7 M260X has double the bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s, while the R5 M255 delivers 32.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The R5 M255, with a pixel rate of 7.520 GPixel/s compared to the R7 M260X's 5.720 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking difference emerges in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The R7 M260X posts 5690 points, while the R5 M255 manages only 4650. The 22.4% delta is the largest performance gap recorded between these two parts in any test. This result aligns with the R7 M260X's higher average benchmark score of 5161 versus 4788 for the R5 M255. The R7 M260X's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, scores 5154, which is a mere 0.1% difference, placing the R7 M260X in a tight cluster around that performance level. The R7 M260X also sits 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240, which scores 5063.

The Vulkan test flips the outcome. The R5 M255 scores 4925, beating the R7 M260X's 4631 by 6%. This is a notable reversal, given the R7 M260X's overall average advantage. The R5 M255's Vulkan result places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which scores 4791, though that comparison reflects the R5 M255's position in the database's ranking rather than direct architectural equivalence. The R5 M255 also edges out the AMD Radeon R5 M335 by 0.8% and trails the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX by 1.2%.

Looking at the raw throughput numbers, the R5 M255 shows higher theoretical peak rates despite its lower OpenCL score. It delivers 721.9 GFLOPS of FP32 compute and a texture rate of 22.56 GTexel/s, compared to the R7 M260X's 549.1 GFLOPS and 17.16 GTexel/s. The R5 M255 also achieves a higher pixel rate of 7.520 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the R7 M260X. These figures suggest the R5 M255 should excel in raw rendering throughput, yet the recorded OpenCL benchmark tells a different story, likely reflecting driver or API optimization differences.

The R7 M260X compensates with memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory at 64.00 GB/s is exactly double the R5 M255's DDR3 at 32.00 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage may explain the R7 M260X's strong OpenCL showing, as memory-bound compute workloads often scale with available bandwidth. The R7 M260X also runs at a lower clock speed, with a base of 620 MHz and boost of 715 MHz, versus the R5 M255's 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost, yet still wins the OpenCL test decisively.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in memory configuration. The R7 M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory, also on a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 32.00 GB/s. This means the R7 M260X delivers twice the memory throughput despite having half the capacity.

Clock speeds also differ. The R7 M260X operates at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost, while the R5 M255 runs at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. The R5 M255's higher clocks contribute to its superior pixel and texture rates: 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s, respectively, versus 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s for the R7 M260X.

Both GPUs share the same shading unit count (384), texture mapping units (24), and ROPs (8). The FP32 compute output, however, favors the R5 M255 at 721.9 GFLOPS compared to 549.1 GFLOPS for the R7 M260X. The R5 M255 also supports FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, a feature the R7 M260X does not list.

The bus interface is identical at PCIe 3.0 x8 for both. The R7 M260X lists power connectors as "None," while the R5 M255 has no connector information recorded. Neither GPU has a recorded TDP or suggested PSU. The R7 M260X specifies display outputs as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R5 M255 has no display output data.

Architecture Differences

The R7 M260X is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip, while the R5 M255 uses GCN 3.0 with the Topaz chip. This architectural generation gap explains several behavioral differences, particularly in API support and compute efficiency.

The R5 M255's GCN 3.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the R7 M260X's GCN 1.0 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer architecture likely contributes to the R5 M255's Vulkan benchmark win, as GCN 3.0 includes improvements in command processing and geometry handling.

The process nodes are identical at 28 nm, both fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts differ substantially: the R7 M260X packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R5 M255 integrates 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly the same at 12.3M per mm² for the R7 M260X and 12.4M per mm² for the R5 M255.

Both GPUs belong to the Gem System generation, with the R7 M260X in the R7 M200 family and the R5 M255 in the R5 M200 family. Both share the same predecessor ("Solar System") and successor ("Polaris Mobile"). The R5 M255 was released earlier, on 2014-10-11, while the R7 M260X followed on 2015-12-05. Both are now end-of-life products.

The R5 M255's larger die and higher transistor count, combined with its higher clock speeds, explain its superior theoretical throughput in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute. However, the R7 M260X's GDDR5 memory and doubled bandwidth demonstrate that memory subsystem design can outweigh raw compute specifications in certain benchmark scenarios. The recorded data shows a clear trade-off: the R5 M255 offers more compute horsepower and newer architecture features, while the R7 M260X counters with faster memory and a decisive OpenCL victory.