AMD Radeon R7 240 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X and AMD Radeon R7 240 are both end-of-life, 28 nm GCN 1.0 parts from AMD, but they target completely different segments: one is a mobile GPU found in laptops, the other a low-profile desktop card. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head test, with the mobile R7 M260X taking a decisive victory, though both cards sit at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level performers. This analysis breaks down the measurable differences between the two based strictly on the provided fact pack.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it clearly favors the mobile part. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5,690, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063. That translates to a 12.4% advantage for the R7 M260X, a significant margin for two GPUs from the same architecture and process node.

Looking at the broader context, the R7 M260X’s average benchmark score of 5,161 puts it 1.9% ahead of the R7 240’s average of 5,063. This is a tighter gap than the single OpenCL test suggests, but the direction is consistent. Interestingly, the R7 M260X’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, which scores 5,154 on average, a mere 0.1% difference. The R7 240, on the other hand, is virtually tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M340, both scoring exactly 5,063. The data shows the R7 240 also edges out the AMD FirePro W4170M by 0.6% and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 by 0.9%.

The victory for the R7 M260X is not a landslide, but it is a consistent one. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, and its average score across all tests is higher. The R7 240 has no wins in the head-to-head data, with a 0 in the wins column for the desktop card. While the R7 240 does have a higher pixel rate (6.240 GPixel/s vs 5.720 GPixel/s), this does not translate into a benchmark win. The M260X’s higher texture rate (17.16 GTexel/s vs 15.60 GTexel/s) and significantly higher memory bandwidth likely contribute to its OpenCL success.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the faster GPU. It holds a 12.4% lead in the only direct benchmark, and its average score is 1.9% higher. For any user comparing raw compute performance, the M260X is the clear pick. Its advantage in Geekbench OpenCL suggests better performance in general-purpose compute workloads, which is a common use case for these entry-level GPUs.

However, the R7 240 is not without its own merits. As a desktop card, it offers a standard single-slot form factor measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. The R7 M260X, being a mobile chip, has "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, meaning its connectivity is entirely up to the laptop manufacturer. If you need a simple, low-profile desktop GPU with a 30 W TDP and no external power connectors, the R7 240 is the only viable choice between the two, as the M260X is not a standalone retail product. The R7 240 also has double the memory (2 GB vs 1 GB), though it is slower DDR3.

The choice depends on the use case. If you are benchmarking or need compute performance in a laptop, the R7 M260X wins. If you need a basic desktop card for display output and light acceleration, the R7 240 is the only one that fits the physical requirements. The data does not support a performance win for the R7 240, but its form factor and connectivity make it the practical choice for desktop systems.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental architecture: GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm TSMC process. They even share the same transistor count of 950 million and the same die size of 77 mm², resulting in an identical transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The core differences lie in the chip configuration and memory subsystem.

The R7 M260X uses the "Opal" chip, while the R7 240 uses the "Oland" chip. This translates to a different number of execution units. The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The R7 240 has fewer of these: 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the M260X has 20% more shaders and TMUs, which directly explains its higher texture fill rate and FP32 performance.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The R7 240 has a higher base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz, compared to the R7 M260X’s 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the M260X achieves higher raw compute throughput because of its wider configuration. The FP32 performance is 549.1 GFLOPS for the M260X versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the R7 240.

The most significant architectural divergence is memory. The R7 M260X uses 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 28.80 GB/s. This is a 2.2x bandwidth advantage for the M260X, which is critical for memory-intensive tasks. The memory clocks also reflect this: the M260X runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the R7 240 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Other differences are minor. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The R7 240 has a specified TDP of 30 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the M260X has no TDP listed in the data. The R7 240 also has a launch MSRP of 69 USD, a detail that is not available for the mobile M260X.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is faster, scoring 5,690 compared to the R7 240’s 5,063, a 12.4% difference.

Q: Does the R7 240 have any benchmark wins over the M260X?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the M260X with 1 win and the R7 240 with 0 wins.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what type?

A: The R7 M260X has 1 GB of GDDR5, while the R7 240 has 2 GB of DDR3. Both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The R7 M260X has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, which is more than double the R7 240’s 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are based on GCN 1.0 architecture and are manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC. They also share the same transistor count of 950 million and die size of 77 mm².

Q: What are the physical differences in form factor?

A: The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and VGA outputs. The R7 M260X is a mobile chip with "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins decisively in raw performance metrics. Its 12.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the headline result. It also wins on memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s), texture fill rate (17.16 GTexel/s vs 15.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (549.1 GFLOPS vs 499.2 GFLOPS). This makes it the better choice for compute workloads, even with its lower clock speeds. The M260X also has more shading units (384 vs 320) and TMUs (24 vs 20), giving it a structural advantage that the R7 240 cannot overcome. For any application that leverages OpenCL or general-purpose GPU compute, the M260X is the superior part.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins on practical desktop usability. It is a single-slot card with a 30 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of only 200 W. It has a fixed set of display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA) that are ready for immediate use. It also has double the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB), which can be beneficial for holding larger textures or datasets, even if the bandwidth is much lower. The R7 240 also has a higher pixel rate (6.240 GPixel/s vs 5.720 GPixel/s), meaning it can fill frames faster at lower resolutions. For a basic desktop build, HTPC, or office machine that needs display output and light acceleration, the R7 240 is the only one of the two that can be physically installed in a standard PCIe slot. The M260X is a mobile chip and cannot be used as a standalone desktop component. The data shows the R7 240 is a slower GPU, but its form factor, power efficiency, and memory capacity make it the winner for desktop integration.