AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD Radeon R7 M260 are both end-of-life mobile GPUs from AMD’s Gem System generation, but they target different points on the performance curve. The R5 M320 is based on the smaller Jet chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R7 M260 uses the larger Topaz chip with GCN 3.0. Benchmark results show a split decision: the R5 M320 wins the OpenCL test by a significant margin, while the R7 M260 takes the Vulkan test. Neither card holds a clear overall advantage, and both sit near the bottom of the GPU performance percentile rankings—27th for the R5 M320 and 26th for the R7 M260. Their average benchmark scores are close, at 4657 for the R5 M320 and 4499 for the R7 M260, but the individual test results reveal different strengths that matter depending on the workload.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Radeon R5 M320 if your priority is OpenCL compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5051 is 36.2% higher than the R7 M260’s 3708, a decisive advantage for any application that leverages OpenCL acceleration. The R5 M320 also has a higher average benchmark score overall (4657 vs 4499), and it sits slightly higher in the percentile rankings at 27 versus 26. In the nearest rival comparison, the R5 M320’s average score of 4657 places it exactly level with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (deltaPct 0), and just 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M. This suggests the R5 M320 is a more balanced performer in synthetic aggregate.

Pick the AMD Radeon R7 M260 if Vulkan-based gaming or applications are your focus. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289 is 19.4% higher than the R5 M320’s 4262, making it the stronger choice for modern APIs that rely on Vulkan. The R7 M260 also has a higher base clock (940 MHz vs 780 MHz), more shading units (384 vs 320), and more texture mapping units (24 vs 20), which contribute to its superior raw throughput in certain workloads. However, its average benchmark score is lower, and its nearest rival comparison shows it trailing the AMD FirePro W4190M by just 0.1%, indicating that its aggregate performance is less impressive than its Vulkan result suggests.

If you have no preference for a specific API, the data slightly favors the R5 M320 due to its higher average score and better OpenCL performance. If you are choosing for a system that will run Vulkan titles or applications, the R7 M260 is the clear pick despite its lower aggregate score. Both are end-of-life parts, so this decision is purely about matching the GPU’s strengths to the software environment.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The R5 M320 uses GCN 1.0 architecture on the Jet chip, while the R7 M260 uses GCN 3.0 architecture on the Topaz chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the chips differ significantly in size and complexity. The Jet chip packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The Topaz chip is much larger, with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving it a slightly higher transistor density of 12.4M per mm².

The architectural generation difference has direct implications for feature support. The R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M320 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, but the newer GCN 3.0 architecture on the R7 M260 provides better compatibility with modern DirectX 12 titles. The R5 M320’s older GCN 1.0 architecture is more limited in this regard, which could affect driver optimization and feature-level support in newer games.

Another key architectural difference is the memory configuration. Both use DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, but the R5 M320 offers 4 GB of memory with a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s, while the R7 M260 offers only 2 GB with a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The R5 M320’s larger frame buffer is a significant advantage for texture-heavy workloads or higher resolutions, even though its bandwidth is only about 11% higher. The R7 M260 compensates with higher clock speeds and more compute units, but the memory capacity difference is stark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has an average benchmark score of 4657, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s 4499. This places the R5 M320 in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M260 sits in the 26th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in DirectX support?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the R7 M260 is better suited for games and applications that require full DirectX 12 feature sets.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 comes with 4 GB of DDR3 memory, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 has only 2 GB of DDR3 memory. Both use a 64-bit bus, but the R5 M320’s bandwidth is 16.00 GB/s compared to the R7 M260’s 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5051, which is 36.2% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s score of 3708.

Q: Which GPU wins the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 5289, which is 19.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M320’s score of 4262.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the AMD Radeon R7 M260 are end-of-life products. The R5 M320 was released on 2015-05-04, and the R7 M260 was released on 2014-06-10. Both are predecessors to the Polaris Mobile generation.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two GPUs are concentrated in the chip, memory, and clock speeds. The R5 M320 uses the Jet chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip with GCN 3.0 architecture. The transistor count and die size differ substantially: the R5 M320 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the R7 M260 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die.

Clock speeds favor the R7 M260. Its base clock is 940 MHz with a boost clock of 980 MHz, compared to the R5 M320’s 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the R5 M320 running at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) and the R7 M260 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). However, the R5 M320 has a memory bandwidth advantage of 16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, despite the lower clock, because of its higher effective data rate.

Compute resources are higher on the R7 M260. It has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the R5 M320 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates to higher theoretical rates for the R7 M260: its pixel rate is 7.840 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 23.52 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is also higher on the R7 M260 at 752.6 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS, and the R7 M260 also supports FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1), which the R5 M320 does not list.

Memory capacity is a major differentiator. The R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3, while the R7 M260 has only 2 GB. Both use a 64-bit bus interface. The R5 M320 is listed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R7 M260 does not specify slot width or display outputs. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results show a clear split between the two GPUs based on the API used. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708. This is a 36.2% advantage for the R5 M320, which is a substantial margin. This result is surprising given the R7 M260’s higher clock speeds and more shading units, but it indicates that the R5 M320’s GCN 1.0 architecture or driver optimization is more effective for OpenCL workloads. In practical terms, this means the R5 M320 would be better for OpenCL-based compute tasks such as video encoding, physics simulations, or general-purpose GPU computing.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the tables turn. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 5289, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 4262. This is a 19.4% advantage for the R7 M260. The newer GCN 3.0 architecture likely provides better Vulkan driver support and more efficient command processing, contributing to this win. For Vulkan-based games and applications, the R7 M260 is the better performer. The deltaPct of -19.4% indicates the R5 M320 is behind by that margin.

Each GPU wins one benchmark, resulting in a 1-1 tie in head-to-head wins. The R5 M320’s win in OpenCL is larger in percentage terms (36.2%) than the R7 M260’s win in Vulkan (19.4%), but the raw score difference tells a different story. In OpenCL, the gap is 1343 points; in Vulkan, the gap is 1027 points. The R5 M320’s OpenCL advantage is more significant in relative terms, but the R7 M260’s Vulkan advantage is still substantial.

When looking at the average benchmark scores, the R5 M320 comes out ahead at 4657 versus 4499 for the R7 M260. This suggests that the OpenCL result carries more weight in the aggregate, or that the R5 M320 is more consistent across different workloads. However, the percentile rankings are nearly identical at 27 and 26, respectively, indicating that both GPUs are in the same performance tier overall.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the clear winner for OpenCL compute workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5051 is 36.2% higher than the R7 M260’s 3708, making it the better choice for applications that offload parallel processing to the GPU via OpenCL. This includes tasks like image processing, data analysis, and certain scientific computing workloads. The R5 M320 also has the advantage of 4 GB of memory, which is double the R7 M260’s 2 GB, allowing it to handle larger datasets without running out of frame buffer. Its higher average benchmark score of 4657 also means it is a more consistent performer across the board, even if it falls behind in Vulkan.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 wins in Vulkan-based scenarios. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289 is 19.4% higher than the R5 M320’s 4262, which is particularly relevant for modern games that use the Vulkan API. The R7 M260’s newer GCN 3.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_0) support make it a better fit for contemporary gaming titles that leverage these APIs. Its higher clock speeds (940 MHz base, 980 MHz boost) and more shading units (384 vs 320) contribute to its superior performance in this area. The R7 M260 also has higher texture and pixel rates, which can benefit games that are fill-rate limited.

For general-purpose use, the choice is less clear-cut. The R5 M320’s 4 GB memory capacity is a significant advantage for multitasking and running memory-hungry applications, while the R7 M260’s higher compute throughput and newer architecture make it more future-proof for software updates and driver optimizations. If the software environment is unknown, the R5 M320’s higher average score and better OpenCL performance make it the safer bet. If the user knows they will be gaming with Vulkan or need DirectX 12 (12_0) support, the R7 M260 is the more appropriate choice. Both GPUs are end-of-life, so neither will see new driver optimizations, but the R7 M260’s newer architecture may have received more recent driver support during its lifetime.