AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X and AMD Radeon R7 Graphics are two discrete-oriented mobile GPUs from different eras of AMD’s product stack, and their benchmark results tell a split story. The M260X, a discrete part from the Gem System (R7 M200) generation, leads decisively in OpenCL compute, while the R7 Graphics, an integrated processor from the Kaveri line, counters with a significant win in Vulkan. With each card claiming one head-to-head victory, the choice between them hinges entirely on the workload and API in question.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test reveals a commanding win for the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. It scores 5690 points against 4015 for the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics, a delta of 41.7%. This is not a marginal edge; the M260X outperforms the integrated part by over 40% in this compute-heavy workload. The data indicates that the discrete GPU’s dedicated memory subsystem and higher clock speeds provide a substantial advantage in raw parallel compute tasks that stress memory bandwidth and sustained throughput.

However, the tables turn completely in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 5980 points, while the M260X manages only 4631 points. The delta is -22.6% from the perspective of the M260X, meaning the integrated R7 Graphics is nearly 30% faster in this API. Vulkan’s low-overhead nature appears to favor the newer architecture of the R7 Graphics, which leverages its GCN 2.0 design more efficiently in this modern graphics API.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all tests, the M260X holds a slight overall edge. Its average score is 5161, compared to 4998 for the R7 Graphics. This 3.3% difference is modest, but it places the M260X in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 Graphics sits just behind at the 29th percentile. The M260X’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, which scores 5236, putting the M260X 1.4% behind it. Meanwhile, the R7 Graphics is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB in its own rival list, though that comparison is more about benchmark score proximity than real-world performance class.

The win/loss split is exactly even at one victory each. This suggests that neither GPU is universally superior; instead, each excels in a specific API environment. The M260X dominates in OpenCL, a compute-centric workload, while the R7 Graphics wins in Vulkan, a graphics-focused API. This pattern points to different design priorities and architectural efficiencies.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Opal chip, while the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics employs GCN 2.0 architecture with the Spectre Lite chip. This generational difference is significant, as GCN 2.0 introduced architectural refinements that improve efficiency in certain workloads, particularly those that leverage newer API features.

Both GPUs share the same core configuration: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. This means their theoretical peak throughput is nearly identical. The M260X achieves 549.1 GFLOPS FP32 performance, while the R7 Graphics is marginally higher at 553.0 GFLOPS. Similarly, pixel rates are close at 5.720 GPixel/s for the M260X and 5.760 GPixel/s for the R7 Graphics. Texture rates follow the same pattern: 17.16 GTexel/s versus 17.28 GTexel/s.

The process node is the same for both, 28 nm, but the foundries differ. The M260X is manufactured by TSMC, while the R7 Graphics comes from GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts diverge dramatically: the M260X packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R7 Graphics contains 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die. This is because the R7 Graphics is an integrated part, sharing a die with the CPU, so it includes far more logic beyond just the GPU cores. The transistor density reflects this, with the M260X at 12.3M per mm² versus 9.8M per mm² for the R7 Graphics.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge most sharply. The M260X has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 Graphics, being an IGP, uses System Shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth that are System Dependent. This means the integrated GPU relies on the system’s main memory, which can be a bottleneck depending on the platform. The M260X’s memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the R7 Graphics has no dedicated memory clock.

API support also differs. The M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher DirectX feature level on the R7 Graphics suggests better compatibility with newer gaming titles that require DirectX 12_0 features.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the clear winner in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 41.7% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL test indicates that it excels in general-purpose GPU computing tasks such as video encoding, physics simulation, and other data-parallel operations. The dedicated GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is likely a key factor, as compute workloads often require constant high-bandwidth memory access. The M260X’s discrete design also means it does not compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, allowing it to sustain peak performance.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics wins in Vulkan-based graphics workloads. Its 22.6% lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test suggests it is better optimized for modern, low-overhead graphics APIs. This makes it the better choice for gaming scenarios that utilize Vulkan, where draw call efficiency and driver overhead are critical. The GCN 2.0 architecture’s improvements in this area are evident, even though the R7 Graphics relies on system memory.

For users who primarily run compute-oriented applications, the M260X is the superior part. Its average benchmark score of 5161 versus 4998 for the R7 Graphics further supports this, as the M260X edges ahead in overall performance. However, for gamers using Vulkan-based titles, the R7 Graphics offers a tangible performance benefit. The M260X’s 30th percentile ranking versus the R7 Graphics’ 29th percentile is a negligible difference in the broader GPU landscape, but the specific API wins are substantial.

Both GPUs are end-of-life products, so neither offers future driver optimizations. The M260X has a 25 W TDP for the R7 Graphics, while the M260X has no listed TDP. The R7 Graphics is an IGP with no power connectors, while the M260X also has no power connectors, making both suitable for low-power systems.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the better choice for compute-focused users. Its 41.7% OpenCL advantage over the R7 Graphics is a decisive margin that cannot be ignored. Anyone running OpenCL-based workloads — scientific computing, video processing, or machine learning inference — will see materially better performance with the M260X. Its dedicated 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth and 1024 MB of GDDR5 provide a stable, high-throughput platform for sustained compute tasks.

The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics is the better option for Vulkan-centric gaming. Its 22.6% Vulkan lead over the M260X makes it the preferred part for titles that leverage this API. The GCN 2.0 architecture’s superior Vulkan implementation is clear, and for users building a system with an AMD Kaveri APU, the integrated R7 Graphics offers a free performance boost in this area. Its DirectX 12_0 support also gives it an edge in newer games that require this feature level.

For a balanced workload, the M260X’s higher average benchmark score of 5161 gives it a slight overall advantage. However, the 3.3% difference is within a margin that may not be noticeable in real-world use. The M260X’s percentile ranking of 30 versus 29 for the R7 Graphics is essentially a tie. Ultimately, the decision comes down to API preference: compute users pick the M260X, Vulkan gamers pick the R7 Graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4015, giving the M260X a 41.7% advantage.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 5980 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 4631 for the M260X, a 22.6% lead for the integrated part.

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

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon R7 M260X and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics have 384 shading units, along with 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs.

Q: What memory does the AMD Radeon R7 M260X use?

A: The M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the process node for both GPUs?

A: Both the M260X and the R7 Graphics are manufactured on a 28 nm process node, though the M260X uses TSMC while the R7 Graphics uses GlobalFoundries.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has an average benchmark score of 5161, while the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998, a 3.3% difference.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M260X | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Chip | Opal | Spectre Lite |

| Transistors | 950 million | 2,410 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 245 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 9.8M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Base Clock | 620 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 715 MHz | Not listed |

| FP32 Performance | 549.1 GFLOPS | 553.0 GFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 5.720 GPixel/s | 5.760 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.16 GTexel/s | 17.28 GTexel/s |

| TDP | Not listed | 25 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |