AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes a single direct benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon R5 M435 and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R5 M435 scores 5859 points, while the R7 M260X scores 5690 points. This gives the R5 M435 a 3% advantage in this workload, marking its only head-to-head win in the database. The margin is modest, but it is consistent with the positioning of both parts as entry-level mobile GPUs from the same architectural family.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the R5 M435 sits at the 33rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 5859. The R7 M260X, by contrast, holds the 30th percentile and an average score of 5161. That gap in average score is larger than the single OpenCL result would suggest, because the R7 M260X also has a recorded Vulkan score of 4631, which pulls its average down. When comparing only the OpenCL results, the two are close, with the R5 M435 leading by 3%. However, the R7 M260X has a second benchmark entry in the database, and that Vulkan result is substantially lower than its OpenCL result, indicating inconsistent performance across different API workloads.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize these scores. The R5 M435 is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M465, which averages 5841, a delta of just 0.3%. It trails the Intel UHD Graphics 730 by 1.2% (5929 average) and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M by 1.6% (5955 average), as well as the NVIDIA Quadro K620M by 1.6% (5957 average). These are all within a narrow band, showing that the R5 M435 sits right at the edge of a cluster of comparable mobile and integrated solutions. The R7 M260X, meanwhile, is nearly tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, which averages 5154, a delta of 0.1%. It trails the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M by 1% (5211 average) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M by 1.4% (5236 average), while leading the AMD Radeon R7 240 by 1.9% (5063 average). The R7 M260X's average score places it in a slightly lower performance tier than the R5 M435, despite having more shading units and a wider memory bus.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M435 wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 3%. This result suggests that in compute-oriented OpenCL workloads, the R5 M435 holds a measurable, though small, edge over the R7 M260X. The R5 M435 also posts a higher average benchmark score, 5859 versus 5161, and a higher percentile rank, 33rd versus 30th. For users or applications that rely primarily on OpenCL compute, the data points to the R5 M435 as the stronger choice.

The R7 M260X, however, has a recorded Vulkan score of 4631, which the R5 M435 does not have in the database. This means the R7 M260X has demonstrated at least some Vulkan capability, while no Vulkan result is listed for the R5 M435. In scenarios where Vulkan performance matters, the R7 M260X is the only one of the two with direct evidence of performance in that API. That said, its Vulkan score is notably lower than its OpenCL score, so it does not appear to be a strength of the part, merely a tested capability.

The R7 M260X also offers a larger memory bus and more bandwidth in its specifications, which may benefit certain memory-intensive workloads even if the benchmark data does not capture a win. The R5 M435, by contrast, has higher clock speeds and a smaller die, which may contribute to its OpenCL advantage. The database records one win for the R5 M435 and zero wins for the R7 M260X in direct comparisons, so the overall head-to-head record favors the R5 M435.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859, which is 3% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260X's score of 5690.

Q: Does the R7 M260X have any benchmark results that the R5 M435 lacks?

A: Yes, the R7 M260X has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4631, while the R5 M435 has no Vulkan result recorded in the database.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of overall database percentile?

A: The R5 M435 sits at the 33rd percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 M260X sits at the 30th percentile.

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

A: The R5 M435 has an average benchmark score of 5859, while the R7 M260X has an average benchmark score of 5161.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, while the R5 M435 has 320 shading units.

Q: What is the memory bus width difference between the two?

A: The R5 M435 has a 64 bit memory bus, while the R7 M260X has a 128 bit memory bus.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications. The R5 M435 is built on the Jet chip, while the R7 M260X uses the Opal chip. Both use the GCN 1.0 architecture and are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with the same transistor density of 12.3M per mm². However, the transistor counts and die sizes differ: the R5 M435 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the R7 M260X has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The R5 M435 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, while the R7 M260X has a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost clock of 715 MHz. The R5 M435's memory runs at 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective speed, while the R7 M260X's memory runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed.

Memory configuration differs as well. The R5 M435 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64 bit bus, yielding 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M435 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs.

The R5 M435 achieves a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 659.2 GFLOPS. The R7 M260X achieves a pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.16 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 549.1 GFLOPS. The R5 M435 is listed with a slot width of IGP, while the R7 M260X has no slot width listed. The R7 M260X has no power connectors listed, while the R5 M435 also has none listed. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and have display outputs that are portable device dependent. The R5 M435 was released earlier, on 2016-05-14, while the R7 M260X was released on 2015-12-05. Both are end-of-life products with the same predecessor, Solar System, and the same successor, Polaris Mobile. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the database.

Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has recorded RT cores, tensor cores, or FP16 performance data. Neither has a TDP, suggested PSU, length, height, width, or game clock listed.

Architecture Differences

The R5 M435 and the R7 M260X share the same underlying architecture, GCN 1.0, and both are fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor density is identical at 12.3M transistors per mm², but the physical implementations diverge in scale. The R5 M435 uses fewer transistors, 690 million on a 56 mm² die, compared to 950 million on a 77 mm² die for the R7 M260X. This difference in die size and transistor budget is characteristic of the two chips, Jet versus Opal, and explains why the R5 M435 has fewer shading units, 320 versus 384, and fewer texture mapping units, 20 versus 24, despite having higher clocks.

Clock speeds further separate the two. The R5 M435 boosts to 1030 MHz, well above the R7 M260X's 715 MHz, and runs its memory at 4.5 Gbps effective speed. The R7 M260X counters with a wider 128 bit memory bus, producing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, double the 36.00 GB/s of the R5 M435. Memory capacity favors the R5 M435, 2 GB versus 1024 MB. The R7 M260X's higher FP32 output of 659.2 GFLOPS and pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s exceed the R7 M260X's 549.1 GFLOPS and 5.720 GPixel/s, reflecting the R5 M435's clock advantage.

Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus, and both support the same set of APIs, DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2. Neither has RT cores or tensor cores, and neither has FP16 data. The R5 M435 is an IGP, meaning it integrates into a portable device, a designation not confirmed for the R7 M260X. Both are end-of-life products with the same predecessor, Solar System, and successor, Polaris Mobile. The transistor density is the same for both parts, and neither has a TDP listed, a TDP-less power connector configuration for the R7 M260X, and a power connector listed as none for the R5 M435. The architecture differences boil down to scale and clock tuning, not fundamental design philosophy, as the core GCN 1.0 design and 28 nm node are shared by both.