AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the AMD Radeon R7 M260X and the AMD Radeon R7 M260 shows two mobile GPUs from the same Gem System (R7 M200) generation, but with different architectural foundations and opposite strengths. The M260X wins the OpenCL workload decisively, while the M260 takes the Vulkan test. The average benchmark score favors the M260X at 5161 versus 4499 for the M260, a difference of roughly 14.7%. The M260X sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, while the M260 sits at the 26th percentile.

For users prioritizing compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, the M260X is the clear choice. Its 5690 OpenCL score dwarfs the M260's 3708, representing a 53.5% advantage. However, for Vulkan-based workloads, the M260 flips the result with a 5289 score against 4631, a 12.4% lead. The M260X also edges out the M260 in the overall average, but the margin is modest enough that the specific workload determines the better pick. The M260X is the safer choice for general compute, while the M260 is preferable for Vulkan-centric applications.

Where Each One Wins

The M260X wins in raw compute throughput as measured by Geekbench OpenCL. Its 5690 score places it ahead of several nearby rivals in the database, including the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5154 (0.1% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211 (-1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (-1.4% delta). It also beats the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063 (1.9% delta). This suggests the M260X performs well in OpenCL-heavy applications such as rendering, physics simulation, or other GPU-accelerated compute tasks.

The M260 wins in Vulkan, a modern cross-platform graphics and compute API. Its 5289 score is 12.4% higher than the M260X's 4631. The M260's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4505 (-0.1% delta), Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (-1.3% delta), AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (-1.5% delta), and AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (-1.7% delta). The M260's Vulkan result places it above all these, indicating better driver support or architectural efficiency for that API.

The M260X also wins on memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory runs at 1000 MHz with a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The M260 uses DDR3 memory at 900 MHz with a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. This bandwidth gap is substantial and likely contributes to the M260X's OpenCL dominance. However, the M260 compensates with higher clocks and a larger memory pool.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share the same manufacturer, process node, and foundry, but diverge in chip design and architecture generation. The M260X uses the Opal chip built on GCN 1.0, while the M260 uses the Topaz chip built on GCN 3.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ significantly. The M260X packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The M260 contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, with a density of 12.4M per mm². The M260 has roughly 63% more transistors and a 62% larger die area.

Clock speeds favor the M260 substantially. The M260 runs at a base clock of 940 MHz and boosts to 980 MHz, while the M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. The higher clocks drive the M260's pixel rate of 7.840 GPixel/s and texture rate of 23.52 GTexel/s, compared to the M260X's 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s. The M260 also reaches 752.6 GFLOPS in FP32, while the M260X achieves 549.1 GFLOPS. Notably, the M260 supports FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the M260X has no listed FP16 capability.

Both GPUs have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. They share the same PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), indicating a more complete DirectX 12 feature set on the newer architecture. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M260X's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the M260 has no display output data recorded.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The M260X offers 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M260 offers 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The M260 has double the capacity but less than a quarter of the bandwidth. The M260X's memory clock is 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate, while the M260 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has an average benchmark score of 5161, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 has 4499. The M260X leads by roughly 662 points.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The M260X scores 5690 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the M260 scores 3708. The M260X leads by 53.5%, making it the stronger choice for OpenCL workloads.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan?

A: The M260 wins the Vulkan test with a score of 5289 against the M260X's 4631, a 12.4% advantage for the M260.

Q: What memory types and capacities do these GPUs use?

A: The M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M260 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

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

A: Yes, both have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units.

Q: What are the architectural differences between the two chips?

A: The M260X uses the Opal chip on GCN 1.0 architecture with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The M260 uses the Topaz chip on GCN 3.0 architecture with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the largest margin in this comparison. The M260X scores 5690, while the M260 manages 3708. The delta is 53.5% in favor of the M260X. This is a massive gap, driven likely by the M260X's GDDR5 memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s versus the M260's DDR3 bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. OpenCL workloads often stress memory throughput, and the M260X's four-fold bandwidth advantage is decisive. The M260X's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154, 0.1% delta), NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, -1%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236, -1.4%), all of which the M260X edges out.

The Geekbench Vulkan test reverses the outcome. The M260 scores 5289, while the M260X scores 4631, giving the M260 a 12.4% lead. This result is noteworthy because the M260 has lower memory bandwidth and fewer transistors than the M260X, yet it wins in this API. The M260's GCN 3.0 architecture, which supports DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the M260X's DirectX 12 (11_1), may contribute to better modern API handling. The M260's higher clocks (940 MHz base, 980 MHz boost versus 620 MHz base, 715 MHz boost) also help in Vulkan, which can be more latency-sensitive than bandwidth-bound.

The data shows one win for each GPU. The M260X wins the OpenCL test, and the M260 wins the Vulkan test. The average benchmark score, however, combines both tests and slightly favors the M260X at 5161 versus 4499. This average places the M260X at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the M260 sits at the 26th percentile. The M260's nearest rivals in the database are all close: AMD FirePro W4190M (4505, -0.1%), Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, -1.3%), AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, -1.5%), and AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, -1.7%). The M260's average sits just below all of these, with the FirePro W4190M being essentially a tie.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications. The chip designs are distinct: the M260X uses Opal, while the M260 uses Topaz. The architecture generation also differs, with the M260X on GCN 1.0 and the M260 on GCN 3.0. The transistor count is 950 million for the M260X versus 1,550 million for the M260. The die size is 77 mm² for the M260X and 125 mm² for the M260. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.3M per mm² and 12.4M per mm² respectively.

Clock speeds favor the M260. The base clock is 620 MHz for the M260X and 940 MHz for the M260. The boost clock is 715 MHz for the M260X and 980 MHz for the M260. The memory clock is 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective for the M260X, while the M260 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

Memory capacity differs: 1024 MB for the M260X versus 2 GB for the M260. Memory type is GDDR5 for the M260X and DDR3 for the M260. The bus width is 128 bit for the M260X and 64 bit for the M260. Bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s for the M260X and 14.40 GB/s for the M260.

Compute rates differ. The pixel rate is 5.720 GPixel/s for the M260X and 7.840 GPixel/s for the M260. The texture rate is 17.16 GTexel/s for the M260X and 23.52 GTexel/s for the M260. FP32 performance is 549.1 GFLOPS for the M260X and 752.6 GFLOPS for the M260. The M260 also lists FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1), while the M260X has no FP16 data.

DirectX support differs, with the M260X supporting DirectX 12 (11_1) and the M260 supporting DirectX 12 (12_0). Both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The power connector field shows "None" for the M260X, while no data is recorded for the M260. The display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for the M260X, while the M260 has no display output data. The M260X has no launch MSRP recorded, and neither does the M260. Both share the same PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, the same 28 nm process node, the same TSMC foundry, and the same production status of end-of-life.