AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits the two AMD mobile GPUs cleanly down the middle. The Radeon R5 M430 takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5152 against the R7 M260's 3708, a commanding 38.9% advantage. This is the older API workload, and it favors the R5 M430's architecture and driver maturity in compute tasks. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the R5 M430 is the clear choice based on this measurement.

The Radeon R7 M260 strikes back in the Vulkan test, scoring 5289 versus the R5 M430's 4884, a 7.7% margin. Vulkan is the more modern graphics and compute API, and here the R7 M260's newer architecture shows its strength. Anyone planning to use Vulkan-based games or applications should expect better results from the R7 M260 according to the recorded data.

The average benchmark score across both tests places the R5 M430 at 5018, which puts it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The R7 M260 averages 4499, landing in the 26th percentile. So while the two cards split the individual tests, the R5 M430 holds a 10.3% higher aggregate score, indicating it is the more consistently capable part in mixed workloads.

For OpenCL-heavy productivity tasks, video encoding, or compute offload, the R5 M430 wins outright. For Vulkan gaming or newer graphics workloads, the R7 M260 is the better pick. Neither card dominates the other across the board, so the choice depends entirely on which API the user's software targets.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The R5 M430 uses the Jet chip built on GCN 1.0, while the R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip on GCN 3.0. This is a fundamental difference in compute unit design, instruction scheduling, and feature support.

Both chips are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon differs substantially. The Jet chip in the R5 M430 contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The Topaz chip in the R7 M260 is much larger: 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, with a nearly identical density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The R7 M260 physically has more than twice the transistor budget, which explains its higher core counts.

The R5 M430 packs 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The R7 M260 raises this to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and the same 8 ROPs. The extra 64 shaders and 4 TMUs give the R7 M260 more raw execution resources, which shows in its higher texture and pixel rates: 23.52 GTexel/s and 7.840 GPixel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s and 6.840 GPixel/s for the R5 M430.

The architectural generation gap also affects API support. The R5 M430 on GCN 1.0 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 M260 on GCN 3.0 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher DirectX feature level on the R7 M260 matters for games that use newer DX12 features, though the Vulkan benchmark result suggests the practical impact is modest.

The R5 M430 has no listed FP16 support, while the R7 M260 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both rated at 752.6 GFLOPS. This makes the R7 M260 more flexible for workloads that can use half-precision arithmetic.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the single largest gap between these two cards. The R5 M430 scores 5152, which is 38.9% higher than the R7 M260's 3708. This is a substantial margin, far beyond what the core count difference would suggest. The R5 M430's GCN 1.0 architecture appears to execute OpenCL workloads more efficiently, or the driver optimization for this older API is better on the M400 generation. In the database, the R5 M430's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5034, just 0.3% behind, and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5063, 0.9% behind. The R7 M260, by contrast, sits near the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 and the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569, both within 1.5%.

The Vulkan test reverses the result. The R7 M260 scores 5289, beating the R5 M430's 4884 by 7.7%. This is a much narrower margin than the OpenCL gap, but it is still meaningful. The R7 M260's GCN 3.0 architecture handles Vulkan's explicit control model better, likely due to improved command processing and memory management. The R7 M260's nearest rivals in this metric include the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4505 and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577, with the R7 M260 sitting 1.7% above the latter. The R5 M430's Vulkan score of 4884 places it above its OpenCL result but still behind the R7 M260.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The R5 M430 averages 5018, which is 10.3% higher than the R7 M260's 4499. This reflects the larger OpenCL win outweighing the smaller Vulkan loss. For users who cannot choose which API their software uses, the R5 M430 is the safer bet on average.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in every major specification except for memory type, bus width, and ROP count. The R5 M430 uses a 64-bit DDR3 memory bus with 4 GB of VRAM and a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s, while the R7 M260 uses the same 64-bit DDR3 bus but with only 2 GB of VRAM and a lower 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M430's memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the R7 M260's runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R5 M430's extra VRAM and higher memory clock give it a bandwidth advantage of 11.1%, which likely contributes to its OpenCL win.

Clock speeds also favor the R7 M260. The R5 M430 runs at a base of 780 MHz and boosts to 855 MHz. The R7 M260 runs at 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost, which is 20.5% higher at base and 14.6% higher at boost. Despite the R7 M260's higher clocks, the R5 M430 still wins in OpenCL, indicating that the older architecture's efficiency in that workload outweighs clock speed.

The R5 M430 has a slot width of "IGP" (integrated graphics processor), meaning it is designed for laptops with no discrete card slot. The R7 M260 has no listed slot width, suggesting it may be a discrete mobile part. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The R5 M430 lists display outputs as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R7 M260 has no display output data in the database.

The R5 M430's FP32 compute is rated at 547.2 GFLOPS, while the R7 M260 reaches 752.6 GFLOPS, a 37.5% advantage. The R7 M260 also matches this figure for FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS, while the R5 M430 has no FP16 rating. Pixel rate favors the R7 M260 at 7.840 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s, and texture rate favors it even more at 23.52 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. Neither card has a listed TDP, power connector, or suggested PSU in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The Radeon R5 M430 is significantly faster, scoring 5152 in Geekbench OpenCL against the R7 M260's 3708, a 38.9% advantage.

Q: Which GPU is faster in Vulkan workloads?

A: The Radeon R7 M260 wins the Vulkan test, scoring 5289 versus the R5 M430's 4884, a 7.7% margin.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M260 has 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the core count differences?

A: The R7 M260 has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, while the R5 M430 has 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. Both have 8 ROPs.

Q: Do they support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The R5 M430 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The R5 M430 averages 5018 across both tests, placing it in the 30th percentile, while the R7 M260 averages 4499, placing it in the 26th percentile.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off. The Radeon R5 M430 is the better choice for OpenCL-based compute tasks, offering a 38.9% performance lead in that specific benchmark. It also provides double the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB) and higher memory bandwidth (16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s), which helps in texture-heavy or memory-bound scenarios. Its average benchmark score of 5018 is higher than the R7 M260's 4499, and it sits in a higher percentile overall.

The Radeon R7 M260 is the better choice for Vulkan workloads, with a 7.7% advantage in that test. It also has a more modern GCN 3.0 architecture with DirectX 12 (12_0) support, higher clock speeds (940 MHz base versus 780 MHz), more shading units (384 versus 320), and higher FP32 compute (752.6 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS). Its texture and pixel rates are also superior.

For a user who prioritizes compute performance in legacy APIs or needs more VRAM for larger datasets, the R5 M430 is the pick. For a user who wants better Vulkan gaming performance, newer architecture features, and higher raw throughput, the R7 M260 is the pick. The database shows no overall winner: each card wins one benchmark, and the choice hinges on which workload matters more. The R5 M430's higher average score gives it a slight edge for mixed use, but the R7 M260's modern feature set makes it the more future-proof option for newer software.