AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

The Verdict

The data shows a clear hierarchy between these two mobile GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the stronger part, winning both recorded benchmark comparisons. It leads by 12.7% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 8.7% in Geekbench Vulkan. If you are choosing between these two for a laptop, the R7 M260X is the safer pick for any compute or graphics workload. The R5 M320 is not without merit, but its advantages are narrow: it has more memory capacity and a higher clock speed, which can help in specific memory-bound or lightly threaded scenarios. However, the R5 M320 loses in every benchmark category recorded in the database. For users who need maximum performance per the available data, the R7 M260X is the recommended choice. For users who prioritize memory capacity over raw throughput, the R5 M320 offers 4 GB versus 1 GB, which could matter for certain workloads that require larger framebuffers, though its memory bandwidth is far lower.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process node at TSMC. The transistor density is identical at 12.3M per mm², which is expected given the shared manufacturing process. The underlying chips differ: the R7 M260X uses the Opal chip, while the R5 M320 uses the Jet chip. The Opal chip packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the Jet chip has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. This means the R7 M260X has roughly 37.7% more transistors and a 37.5% larger die, which translates into more compute resources.

The core configurations reflect this difference. The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R5 M320 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and the same 8 ROPs. So the R7 M260X offers 20% more shading units and 20% more TMUs, while the ROP count is identical. The R5 M320 compensates with higher clocks: its base clock is 780 MHz and boost is 855 MHz, versus 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost on the R7 M260X. That is a 25.8% higher base clock and a 19.6% higher boost clock, which partially offsets the core count deficit.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge significantly. The R7 M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M320 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s. The R7 M260X has 4x the memory bandwidth, while the R5 M320 has 4x the capacity. Effective memory speed is 4 Gbps on the R7 M260X versus 2 Gbps on the R5 M320. Both share the same PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two benchmark comparisons between these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The R7 M260X wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 M260X scores 5690 against 5051 for the R5 M320. That is a 12.7% advantage. This is the larger margin of the two tests, and it reflects the R7 M260X's superior memory bandwidth and higher shading unit count. OpenCL workloads, which often stress memory throughput and parallel compute, favor the R7 M260X heavily.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the R7 M260X scores 4631 against 4262 for the R5 M320, an 8.7% lead. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can be more sensitive to driver overhead and memory latency, but the R7 M260X still holds a clear edge. The R5 M320's higher clock speed (855 MHz boost versus 715 MHz) helps it close the gap somewhat, but the R7 M260X's 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 16.00 GB/s is a decisive factor.

The average benchmark score for the R7 M260X is 5161, placing it at the 30th percentile among all GPUs. The R5 M320 averages 4657, placing it at the 27th percentile. The R7 M260X sits within a tight pack of rivals: it is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (avg 5154), 1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (avg 5211), 1.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (avg 5236), and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240 (avg 5063). The R5 M320 matches the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB exactly (both avg 4657), is 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (avg 4684), 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (avg 4628), and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (avg 4621). These deltas are all within a few percentage points, indicating that both GPUs sit in a crowded mid-to-low performance tier.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields. The chip is Opal on the R7 M260X versus Jet on the R5 M320. Transistor count is 950 million versus 690 million. Die size is 77 mm² versus 56 mm². Base clock is 620 MHz versus 780 MHz. Boost clock is 715 MHz versus 855 MHz. Effective memory speed is 4 Gbps versus 2 Gbps.

Memory size is 1024 MB versus 4 GB. Memory type is GDDR5 versus DDR3. Bus width is 128 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s. Shading units are 384 versus 320. TMUs are 24 versus 20. ROPs are identical at 8. Pixel rate is 5.720 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s, favoring the R5 M320 due to its higher clock. Texture rate is 17.16 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s, nearly identical. FP32 compute is 549.1 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS, also nearly identical.

The R5 M320 has a slot width of "IGP" (integrated graphics processor), while the R7 M260X has no listed slot width. The R7 M260X has no power connectors, while the R5 M320 has no listed power connector data. Release dates differ: the R7 M260X launched on 2015-12-05, while the R5 M320 launched on 2015-05-04. Both are end-of-life, both belong to the Gem System generation (R7 M200 for the R7 M260X, R5 M300 for the R5 M320), and both list Solar System as their predecessor and Polaris Mobile as their successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins both recorded benchmarks. It scores 5690 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5051 for the R5 M320 (12.7% ahead), and 4631 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4262 (8.7% ahead).

Q: Does the R5 M320 have more memory?

A: Yes, the R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory, while the R7 M260X has 1024 MB of GDDR5. However, the R7 M260X has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus 16.00 GB/s on the R5 M320, so the R5 M320's capacity advantage comes with a major bandwidth penalty.

Q: Why does the R5 M320 have a higher clock speed?

A: The R5 M320's base clock is 780 MHz and boost is 855 MHz, compared to 620 MHz and 715 MHz on the R7 M260X. This higher clock helps the R5 M320 achieve a higher pixel rate (6.840 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s), but it does not overcome the R7 M260X's advantages in shading units, TMUs, and memory bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs DirectX 12 compatible?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API-level compatibility is identical.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R7 M260X is within 1.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and GeForce GTX 760M, and within 1.9% of the AMD Radeon R7 240. The R5 M320 is exactly tied with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, and within 0.8% of the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, while the R5 M320 has 320. That is a 20% difference in favor of the R7 M260X.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M260X is the winner in all recorded benchmark categories. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 12.7% and Geekbench Vulkan by 8.7%. Its strengths are clear: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, 128-bit GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, and a larger die with more transistors. These specifications make it the better choice for compute-heavy applications, modern game rendering, and any workload that benefits from high memory bandwidth. The data shows it sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, slightly above the R5 M320's 27th percentile. If you are running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the R7 M260X is the pick.

The R5 M320 has specific, narrow advantages. It has 4 GB of memory versus 1 GB, which can be useful for workloads that need a large framebuffer or store more data locally on the GPU. It also has higher clock speeds (780 MHz base, 855 MHz boost), which gives it a higher pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s on the R7 M260X. This could translate to better performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios, though the R7 M260X's texture rate is essentially identical (17.16 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s) and its FP32 compute is also nearly identical (549.1 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS). The R5 M320 is also an IGP-class part, which may suit systems where power and space are constrained, though no TDP data is recorded to confirm that.

For a practical recommendation: if the choice is between a laptop with the R7 M260X and one with the R5 M320, and all else is equal, the R7 M260X is the better performer in every benchmark the database tracks. The R5 M320 only makes sense if the 4 GB memory capacity is a hard requirement for your specific applications, and you are willing to accept a 64.00 GB/s to 16.00 GB/s bandwidth drop. The benchmark deltas are not massive (12.7% and 8.7%), but they are consistent across both API tests, indicating a real performance gap rather than a workload-specific artifact. The R7 M260X also has a higher average benchmark score (5161 versus 4657), reinforcing its position as the stronger part.