AMD Radeon R7 240 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile and desktop oriented GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708. That gives the R7 240 a 36.5% advantage, a significant margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their similar naming.

The R7 240's OpenCL score of 5063 places it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5063 (0% delta), the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5034 (0.6% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5018 (0.9% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998 (1.3% behind). The R7 240 essentially sits at parity with the R7 M340, while edging out the FirePro W4170M and R5 M430 by less than a single percentage point. This clustering indicates that the R7 240 is firmly planted in the entry-level segment, where small score differences separate competitors.

The R7 M260, by contrast, posts an OpenCL score of 3708, which is notably lower. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4499, reflecting the fact that it also has a Vulkan result of 5289. The R7 M260 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals tell a different story: the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 (0.1% ahead), the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4560 (1.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 4569 (1.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 (1.7% ahead). Interestingly, all of these rivals outperform the R7 M260 in average score, though by narrow margins. The R7 M260 is at the bottom of its immediate competitive cluster, trailing even the integrated Intel HD Graphics P530 and the older R5 M230.

The head-to-head delta of 36.5% is substantial. To put it in context, the R7 240's OpenCL result is closer to the R7 M340 (0% difference) and FirePro W4170M (0.6% difference) than it is to any result near the R7 M260. The R7 M260's OpenCL score is fully 1355 points lower than the R7 240's, a gap that dwarfs the differences between the R7 240 and its own nearest rivals. The data shows no ambiguity: in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL, the R7 240 is the clear winner.

However, the R7 M260 does have a Vulkan score of 5289, a test that the R7 240 does not have recorded in the database. This means the R7 M260 can point to a higher peak score in a different API, but with only one OpenCL comparison available, the head-to-head record stands at 1 win for the R7 240 and 0 wins for the R7 M260.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 240 wins in the compute-heavy OpenCL workload, which is the only directly comparable benchmark in the database. Its 5063 score represents a 36.5% advantage over the R7 M260's 3708. This suggests that for general-purpose GPU compute tasks, OpenCL applications, and any workload that relies on raw shader throughput, the R7 240 is the stronger choice. The R7 240's 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, combined with a 128-bit memory bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, provide a solid foundation for these tasks. Its pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s and texture rate of 15.60 GTexel/s are competitive for its class.

The R7 M260, despite having more shading units (384) and texture units (24), suffers from a narrower 64-bit memory bus and half the bandwidth at 14.40 GB/s. Its pixel rate of 7.840 GPixel/s and texture rate of 23.52 GTexel/s are actually higher than the R7 240's, indicating that in fill-rate limited scenarios, the R7 M260 could have an edge. However, the recorded benchmark data does not include any fill-rate specific tests, so this remains theoretical based on the specifications. The R7 M260's fp32 throughput of 752.6 GFLOPS is also higher than the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS, and it even supports fp16 at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1), which the R7 240 does not list. Yet the OpenCL result contradicts these raw specification advantages, suggesting that memory bandwidth or driver efficiency plays a larger role in the actual measured performance.

For users running Vulkan workloads, the R7 M260 has a recorded score of 5289, which is higher than its OpenCL score and higher than the R7 240's OpenCL score. This could indicate that the R7 M260 is better optimized for Vulkan, or that the Vulkan test favors its architecture. The R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), so the M260 has a more modern feature level in that API. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

In summary, the R7 240 wins the only direct comparison, but the R7 M260 shows strengths in Vulkan and theoretical fill-rate metrics. The R7 M260's higher Vulkan score of 5289 is the only benchmark result that exceeds any of the R7 240's recorded numbers.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for compute-oriented tasks: the AMD Radeon R7 240. Its OpenCL score of 5063 beats the R7 M260's 3708 by 36.5%, and it sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, five points higher than the R7 M260's 26th percentile. The R7 240 also has the advantage of being a desktop card with a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, making it a straightforward drop-in for systems with a 200 W power supply. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, double the R7 M260's 14.40 GB/s.

The R7 M260, however, is a mobile-oriented part with no recorded TDP or power connector data. Its average benchmark score of 4499 is lower than the R7 240's 5063, and its nearest rivals all outperform it by small margins. The only scenario where the R7 M260 shows a clear advantage is in Vulkan, where its 5289 score stands as the highest single benchmark result between the two cards. Additionally, its fp32 throughput of 752.6 GFLOPS and support for fp16 at 752.6 GFLOPS indicate higher theoretical compute capacity, even if the OpenCL test does not reflect it.

For buyers choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the R7 240 is the safer bet for OpenCL-based applications and general compute. The R7 M260 may be preferable for Vulkan-specific workloads or for systems where its lower memory bandwidth is acceptable. The R7 240's launch MSRP was 69 USD, though no pricing data exists for the R7 M260.

Given that the head-to-head record is 1 win for the R7 240 and 0 for the R7 M260, and the R7 240's percentile ranking is higher, the database favors the R7 240 as the overall stronger performer. The R7 M260's Vulkan result is noteworthy, but it does not overcome the substantial OpenCL deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, which is 36.5% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260's 3708.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260 have any benchmark where it outperforms the R7 240?

A: The R7 M260 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289, a test that the R7 240 does not have recorded in the database. This is the only benchmark result for the M260 that exceeds the R7 240's OpenCL score.

Q: How does the R7 240 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R7 240 scores identically to the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5063, and it is 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034), 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998).

Q: What is the R7 M260's position relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The R7 M260 has an average score of 4499. It trails the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505) by 0.1%, the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560) by 1.3%, the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) by 1.5%, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577) by 1.7%.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two cards?

A: The R7 240 has a 128-bit memory bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M260 has a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The R7 M260 has a higher pixel rate of 7.840 GPixel/s and texture rate of 23.52 GTexel/s, compared to the R7 240's 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s. However, this does not translate to a higher OpenCL score in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's architecture. The AMD Radeon R7 240 is built on the Oland chip using GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, belonging to the Gem System (R7 M200) generation. This architectural gap explains several specification differences.

The R7 240 is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The R7 M260 also uses a 28 nm process at TSMC but packs 1,550 million transistors on a larger 125 mm² die, resulting in a nearly identical density of 12.4M per mm². The M260 has 63% more transistors and a 62% larger die, reflecting its more complex GCN 3.0 design.

The compute resources differ notably. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The R7 M260 increases this to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This gives the M260 higher theoretical peak performance: 752.6 GFLOPS fp32 versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the R7 240, and 752.6 GFLOPS fp16 (1:1) for the M260, a capability the R7 240 does not list. The M260's texture rate of 23.52 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 7.840 GPixel/s also exceed the R7 240's 15.60 GTexel/s and 6.240 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture is where the R7 240 compensates. Both cards have 2 GB of DDR3, but the R7 240 uses a 128-bit bus for 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M260 is limited to a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage likely explains the R7 240's superior OpenCL performance despite lower compute specs.

Clock speeds favor the M260, with a base of 940 MHz and boost of 980 MHz versus the R7 240's 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. Both operate memory at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The M260 has no recorded TDP or power specifications, consistent with its mobile orientation.

API support differs in DirectX: the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both offer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 240 provides display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA, while the M260 has no recorded display outputs. The R7 240 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, while the M260 has no recorded dimensions.

Release timing also differs: the R7 240 launched on 2013-10-07, while the R7 M260 arrived on 2014-06-10. Both are end-of-life products. The R7 240's predecessor is Sea Islands and successor is Pirate Islands, while the R7 M260's predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile.