AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs AMD Radeon R7 M260 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall advantage for the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics across the two compute workloads measured. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the integrated part scores 4015 points, while the discrete AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708 points. This represents an 8.3% lead for the R7 Graphics, a substantial margin for a workload that typically scales with raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth.

The gap widens further in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The R7 Graphics reaches 5980 points, against 5289 points for the R7 M260. That is a 13.1% advantage, indicating the integrated solution maintains its superiority even under a modern low-level graphics API. The higher delta in Vulkan compared to OpenCL suggests the R7 Graphics benefits more from API efficiency, driver scheduling, or architectural characteristics that favor command buffer overhead handling.

When examining the average benchmark score across both tests, the R7 Graphics posts 4998 points, while the R7 M260 averages 4499 points. The difference of roughly 499 points places the integrated part in a higher performance tier. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the R7 Graphics sits at the 29th percentile among all GPUs, whereas the R7 M260 sits at the 26th percentile. While both are modest positions, the R7 Graphics is measurably ahead.

The nearest rival data provides context for how each part sits relative to the broader market. The R7 Graphics average score of 4998 places it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (4979 points) and 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4970 points). It trails the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018 points) by a slim 0.4% and the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034 points) by 0.7%. These are tight margins, indicating the R7 Graphics competes in a dense cluster of GPUs separated by less than one percent.

The R7 M260, with its 4499 average, sits in a slightly lower cluster. It is 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505 points), 1.3% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560 points), 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569 points), and 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577 points). Notably, the R5 M230 appears in both parts' rival lists, and the R7 M260 trails it by a larger margin than the R7 Graphics trails its own nearest competitors. This suggests the M260 is further from the top of its immediate performance cluster than the R7 Graphics is from the top of its cluster.

The head-to-head results are consistent: the R7 Graphics wins both benchmark tests, with the Vulkan margin nearly double the OpenCL margin. No test in the database favors the R7 M260.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics wins in both measured workloads, but the nature of the wins differs. In OpenCL, the advantage is 8.3%, which is substantial but not overwhelming. In Vulkan, the advantage grows to 13.1%, suggesting the integrated part has a particular strength in scenarios that stress driver overhead and draw call throughput. For applications leveraging Vulkan, the R7 Graphics provides a more responsive experience relative to the M260.

There are no benchmark categories where the R7 M260 records a win. The discrete card does not outperform the integrated part in either OpenCL or Vulkan. However, the R7 M260 holds certain architectural and physical advantages that are not captured by the compute scores. It has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 Graphics relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. In workloads where dedicated memory latency and consistent bandwidth matter, the M260 may behave differently, even if the aggregate compute scores do not reflect it.

For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL general-purpose processing, the R7 Graphics is the stronger choice based on the 8.3% lead. For Vulkan-based rendering or compute workloads, the R7 Graphics is even more strongly preferred, given the 13.1% margin. The M260, while not winning any measured test, remains a discrete solution with its own memory subsystem, which could theoretically benefit memory-bound scenarios that the current benchmark suite does not isolate.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different GCN generations and different foundries. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics uses the Spectre Lite chip, built on GCN 2.0 architecture, and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) for the Kaveri generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die. The transistor density is 9.8 million per square millimeter.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip, built on GCN 3.0 architecture, and belongs to the Gem System generation under the R7 M200 series. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.4 million per square millimeter. The M260's die is nearly half the size of the R7 Graphics' die, yet it packs fewer transistors, resulting in a higher density.

Both parts share identical core counts: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The raw throughput figures differ, however. The R7 Graphics delivers a pixel rate of 5.760 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.28 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 553.0 GFLOPS. The R7 M260 delivers a higher pixel rate of 7.840 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 23.52 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 752.6 GFLOPS. The M260 also lists FP16 performance at 752.6 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the R7 Graphics has no recorded FP16 value.

Despite the M260's higher theoretical throughput rates, its benchmark scores are lower. This discrepancy points to real-world factors beyond raw ALU counts. The R7 Graphics operates with system shared memory, meaning memory latency and bandwidth depend entirely on the host platform's memory configuration. The M260 has dedicated GDDR3-class memory at 900 MHz, running at 1800 Mbps effective, across a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s. The R7 Graphics has no fixed memory clock; its memory is system shared and system dependent.

The M260 also has a defined base clock of 940 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz, while the R7 Graphics has no recorded base or boost clock, as its clocks are likely tied to the host processor's power and thermal envelope. Power consumption is recorded only for the R7 Graphics at 25 W, with no TDP listed for the M260. The R7 Graphics uses an IGP slot width and motherboard-dependent display outputs, while the M260 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

Architecturally, GCN 3.0 on the M260 is a newer generation than GCN 2.0 on the R7 Graphics. However, the newer architecture does not translate into higher benchmark scores in this dataset. The R7 Graphics also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, identical API support to the M260. Both parts are end-of-life, with the R7 Graphics released earlier (February 2014) and the M260 released later (June 2014). The R7 Graphics' predecessor is TeraScale 3 IGP and its successor is GCN 3.0 IGP, while the M260's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous regarding compute performance. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics wins both recorded benchmarks, with an 8.3% lead in OpenCL and a 13.1% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 4998 sits 11.1% above the M260's 4499. The percentile ranking also favors the integrated part, 29th versus 26th.

The R7 M260 does offer higher theoretical pixel and texture rates, as well as higher FP32 throughput, but these specifications do not translate into higher scores in the recorded tests. The M260's dedicated 2 GB memory and fixed 14.40 GB/s bandwidth are genuine advantages for scenarios where the host system's shared memory is slow or limited, but the benchmark suite does not capture such a scenario as a win for the M260.

For users prioritizing compute workloads in OpenCL or Vulkan, the R7 Graphics is the stronger choice based on recorded data. It also carries a lower power envelope at 25 W, which is relevant for systems where thermal and power constraints are tight. The M260's higher theoretical throughput and dedicated memory make it a more conventional discrete solution, but the measured results place it behind the integrated part in both tests.

The choice between the two should come down to platform context. In a system where the R7 Graphics is paired with fast dual-channel shared memory, its already demonstrated lead could widen further. In a system with slow shared memory, the M260's dedicated memory might close the gap, though the recorded data does not show any test where the M260 wins.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics has an average benchmark score of 4998, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 averages 4499.

Q: How large is the lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The R7 Graphics scores 5980 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 13.1% higher than the M260's score of 5289.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the R7 Graphics and the R7 M260 have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: The R7 Graphics uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The R7 M260 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher theoretical FP32 performance?

A: The R7 M260 has higher theoretical FP32 performance at 752.6 GFLOPS, compared to the R7 Graphics' 553.0 GFLOPS, despite the M260 scoring lower in benchmarks.

Q: What is the process node for both GPUs?

A: Both the R7 Graphics and the R7 M260 are fabricated on a 28 nm process, though the R7 Graphics uses GlobalFoundries while the M260 uses TSMC.