AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 and AMD Radeon R5 M330 are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from AMD's Gem System generation, aimed at entry-level laptops. While both share the same memory configuration and process node, they diverge significantly in architecture, execution resources, and benchmark performance. The data reveals a clear trade-off: the R5 M330 wins in OpenCL compute workloads, while the R7 M260 dominates in Vulkan graphics performance. Neither card holds a universal advantage, making the choice dependent on the intended software environment.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a split decision, with each GPU winning one of the two head-to-head tests. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the stronger choice for compute-oriented tasks, as evidenced by its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4302, which is 13.8% higher than the R7 M260's 3708. This makes the R5 M330 the better option for general-purpose GPU computing, content creation, or any workload leveraging OpenCL. Its average benchmark score of 4170 also places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, slightly behind the R7 M260's 26th percentile ranking despite the higher OpenCL result.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 is the definitive winner for graphics-centric applications, particularly those utilizing the Vulkan API. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289 is a substantial 31% higher than the R5 M330's 4037, representing a commanding lead in modern gaming or rendering workloads that leverage Vulkan. This advantage is notable given the R7 M260's lower average benchmark score of 4499, which still outperforms the R5 M330's 4170 average. For users prioritizing gaming or DirectX 12/Vulkan titles, the R7 M260's superior graphics throughput makes it the clear pick.

The rivalry data contextualizes both GPUs. The R7 M260's average score of 4499 places it within 1.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 560 and Intel HD Graphics P530, suggesting near-parity with those parts. Meanwhile, the R5 M330's 4170 average is just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, indicating it competes in a similar performance tier. In practical terms, neither GPU is a high performer by modern standards, but the R7 M260 offers better graphics API support, while the R5 M330 is more efficient in compute. The verdict: choose the R7 M260 for gaming and graphics, the R5 M330 for compute and OpenCL-driven applications.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip based on GCN 3.0, while the R5 M330 uses the Exo chip based on the older GCN 1.0. This architectural gap explains many of the performance differences observed in the benchmarks. The R7 M260's newer GCN 3.0 design supports DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the R5 M330's GCN 1.0 architecture only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1), a meaningful difference for compatibility with the latest graphics features.

Transistor counts and die sizes reinforce the generational divide. The R7 M260 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The R5 M330, in contrast, is a much smaller chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, achieving a nearly identical density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the R7 M260's larger die accommodates more execution hardware: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 ROPs, versus the R5 M330's 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 20% advantage in shading units and TMUs for the R7 M260 is a key factor in its Vulkan performance lead.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The R5 M330 runs at a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, both higher than the R7 M260's 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost. This higher clock rate helps the R5 M330 partially compensate for its fewer execution units, contributing to its OpenCL win. The R7 M260's pixel rate of 7.840 GPixel/s is lower than the R5 M330's 8.240 GPixel/s, but its texture rate of 23.52 GTexel/s exceeds the R5 M330's 20.60 GTexel/s. The R7 M260 also leads in FP32 throughput with 752.6 GFLOPS versus the R5 M330's 659.2 GFLOPS, while the R7 M260's FP16 performance is identical at 752.6 GFLOPS.

Power and packaging differ as well. The R5 M330 has a specified TDP of 18 W and is designated as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, whereas the R7 M260's TDP is not listed. The R5 M330's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R7 M260's are unspecified. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and feature identical memory specs: 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus delivering 14.40 GB/s bandwidth at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R5 M330 was released later, on 2015-05-04, compared to the R7 M260's 2014-06-10, and both share the same predecessor (Solar System) and successor (Polaris Mobile).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 4302, which is 13.8% higher than the R7 M260's 3708. This makes the R5 M330 the preferred choice for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads.

Q: Which GPU is better for Vulkan-based games?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 is significantly better in Vulkan, scoring 5289 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the R5 M330's 4037. The R7 M260 holds a 31% advantage, making it the clear winner for Vulkan applications.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both the R7 M260 and R5 M330 feature 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). There is no difference in memory specs.

Q: How do their DirectX support levels compare?

A: The R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M330 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the R7 M260 has better compatibility with the latest DirectX 12 features.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, compared to the R5 M330's 320 shading units. The R7 M260 also has more TMUs (24 vs. 20), though both have 8 ROPs.

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

A: The R7 M260 has an average benchmark score of 4499, placing it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs. The R5 M330 has an average score of 4170, placing it in the 25th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M260 | AMD Radeon R5 M330 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Topaz | Exo |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M200) | Gem System (R5 M300) |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 940 MHz | 955 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 980 MHz | 1030 MHz |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.840 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.52 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 752.6 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | Not specified | 18 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | IGP |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Display Outputs | Not specified | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Release Date | 2014-06-10 | 2015-05-04 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 3708 | 4302 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 5289 | 4037 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 4499 | 4170 |

| Percentile | 26 | 25 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head benchmark results, with each winning one of the two tests. The most dramatic victory belongs to the AMD Radeon R7 M260 in Geekbench Vulkan, where its score of 5289 dwarfs the R5 M330's 4037. This 31% delta is the largest performance gap between the two cards and highlights the R7 M260's architectural advantage in modern graphics APIs. The R7 M260's newer GCN 3.0 architecture and 384 shading units likely drive this substantial lead, making it the superior choice for any Vulkan-based workload, including many contemporary games and emulators.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 counters with a win in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 4302 against the R7 M260's 3708. This 13.8% advantage in compute performance is notable, especially considering the R5 M330's smaller chip and fewer shading units. The R5 M330's higher clock speeds (955 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost) appear to be the decisive factor, allowing it to outperform the R7 M260 in this parallel compute workload. This result suggests that for general-purpose GPU computing tasks like video encoding or scientific simulations, the R5 M330 is the more capable part.

When looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the R7 M260 still leads with 4499 versus the R5 M330's 4170, a difference of roughly 7.9%. This average is derived from the two individual benchmarks, and the R7 M260's massive Vulkan win more than compensates for its OpenCL deficit. The R7 M260's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505 average, -0.1% delta) and Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560 average, -1.3% delta), placing it in a tightly contested mid-range mobile segment. The R5 M330's rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151 average, 0.4% delta) and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193 average, -0.5% delta), showing it competes with a slightly different set of parts.

The benchmark data also reveals that the R7 M260's Vulkan score of 5289 is its standout achievement, far exceeding its OpenCL result. Conversely, the R5 M330 performs better in OpenCL (4302) than in Vulkan (4037), indicating a narrower performance envelope. For users who primarily run Vulkan applications, the R7 M260 is the emphatic winner; for those relying on OpenCL, the R5 M330 offers the better performance. The choice between these two GPUs ultimately hinges on the software environment, with no single card being the definitive all-around champion.