AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs AMD Radeon R7 M340 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two mobile GPUs. Each card claims one benchmark victory, but the margins are far from symmetrical. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R7 M340 posts a score of 4932 against 3708 for the R7 M260, a decisive 33% advantage. That is a commanding lead in raw compute throughput, one of the largest deltas observed between two cards with otherwise similar positioning. The M340's shading engine is clearly the more efficient unit when the workload is general-purpose compute.

The Vulkan test tells a different story, and it is a much closer one. The R7 M260 edges ahead with a score of 5289 versus 5193 for the M340, a margin of just 1.8%. In practical terms, that is nearly a tie. The M260 does not dominate in Vulkan; it simply takes the lead by a narrow enough margin that driver-level differences or test-run variance could explain the gap. What matters for the database comparison is that the M260 holds the graphics API advantage, however slim, while the M340 holds the compute API advantage by a very large margin.

When we look at the average benchmark scores, the M340 lands at 5063, placing it in the 30th percentile among all GPUs. The M260 averages 4499, which puts it in the 26th percentile. The difference in percentile rank is modest, but the raw score gap of 564 points (about 12.5%) is more substantial. The M340's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 240 at an identical average score of 5063 (0% delta), the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5034 (0.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5018 (0.9% behind). The M260, by contrast, sits near the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4505 (0.1% ahead), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (1.3% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (1.5% behind). The M340 competes in a slightly higher performance tier, while the M260 sits just below it, despite the Vulkan win.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split maps cleanly onto workload type. The R7 M340 wins decisively in OpenCL, which is the standard API for compute tasks such as video encoding, physics simulation, and data-parallel workloads. Its 33% lead in that test is not a marginal edge; it is a categorical advantage. Any application that offloads heavy math to the GPU will see substantially better throughput on the M340. The M260 cannot match that compute headroom, and the database shows no other benchmark where the M260's compute performance closes that gap.

The R7 M260 wins in Vulkan, the modern graphics API used by games and 3D rendering applications. Its 1.8% lead is small, but it is a lead nonetheless. For users whose primary GPU workload is gaming or real-time 3D graphics, the M260 holds a slight edge. The Vulkan score difference is small enough that it may not translate into a perceptible frame-rate advantage in most titles, but it is the only recorded metric where the M260 comes out ahead. The data does not show any other test, so the conclusion is limited to what was measured: one compute benchmark and one graphics benchmark. Based on those two results, the M340 is the compute pick and the M260 is the graphics pick, with the compute gap being far more pronounced than the graphics gap.

The wins are balanced at one apiece, but the magnitudes are not. A 33% win in OpenCL is a much larger statement than a 1.8% win in Vulkan. If a user values compute performance, the M340 is the clear choice. If a user values pure graphics API performance, the M260 offers a nominal advantage, but the risk of that advantage being lost in real-world variance is high. The database records the M340's average score as 5063, which is 12.5% above the M260's 4499, so the overall compute-leaning profile of the M340 is the stronger one.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 3.0 architecture, the same 28 nm process node from TSMC, and an identical transistor count of 1,550 million on a 125 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter for both. The foundry, process, and die are the same, so any performance difference comes from how the silicon is configured, not from the underlying manufacturing technology.

The chip names differ. The M340 uses the Meso chip, while the M260 uses the Topaz chip. Both are part of the Gem System generation, but the M340 belongs to the R7 M300 series and the M260 belongs to the R7 M200 series. The M340 was released on May 4, 2015, while the M260 came nearly a year earlier on June 10, 2014. Both are end-of-life products, and both list Solar System as their predecessor and Polaris Mobile as their successor. The newer M340 has a slightly higher base clock at 943 MHz versus 940 MHz for the M260, and a higher boost clock at 1021 MHz versus 980 MHz. The memory clock also favors the M340, running at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the M260.

The core configuration is where the tables turn. The M260 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The M340 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and the same 8 ROPs. The M260 has 20% more shaders and 20% more TMUs. Yet the M340 still wins OpenCL by 33%. The reason is clock speed and memory bandwidth. The M340's higher boost clock (1021 MHz versus 980 MHz) and faster memory (2 Gbps effective versus 1800 Mbps effective) yield a memory bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s for the M260. The M340's pixel rate is 8.168 GPixel/s versus 7.840 GPixel/s for the M260, and its texture rate is 20.42 GTexel/s versus 23.52 GTexel/s for the M260. The M340 has fewer TMUs, so its texture rate is lower, but its pixel rate is higher because of the clock advantage. In FP32 compute, the M340 delivers 653.4 GFLOPS, while the M260 delivers 752.6 GFLOPS. The M260 has the higher theoretical compute ceiling, yet the measured OpenCL score favors the M340. The database does not explain why, but the clock and memory differences are the most likely contributors.

Both GPUs use 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both connect via PCIe 3.0 x8. Neither has a listed TDP, slot width, power connector, or suggested PSU. The M260's higher shader count gives it a theoretical FP32 advantage of 99.2 GFLOPS, but the M340's measured performance in compute is superior. The architecture is identical, so the difference in results must stem from how the clocks and memory interact with the actual workloads in the benchmark suite.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on use case. For compute-heavy workloads, the AMD Radeon R7 M340 is the superior choice. Its 33% OpenCL lead is the single largest delta between the two cards, and its higher average benchmark score of 5063 places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, four points above the M260's 26th percentile. The M340's higher boost clock and memory bandwidth make it the more effective compute part, despite having fewer shading units. If the workload is video processing, data analytics, or any OpenCL-accelerated task, the M340 is the card to pick.

For graphics-oriented tasks using the Vulkan API, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 takes a narrow 1.8% lead. Its 5289 Vulkan score is the highest single benchmark result between the two cards. The M260 also has more shading units and TMUs, which gives it theoretical advantages in geometry and texture-heavy workloads. However, the margin is thin, and the M260's overall average score is lower at 4499. The M260 is the choice only if the primary workload is Vulkan-based gaming or rendering, and even then, the edge is small enough that the M340's compute advantage may matter more in a mixed workload.

The database shows one win each, but the wins are not equal in weight. The M340's 33% OpenCL victory dwarfs the M260's 1.8% Vulkan victory. For most users, the M340 is the more balanced and capable card. It competes with the Radeon R7 240 at parity, while the M260 sits closer to the FirePro W4190M and Intel HD Graphics P530. The M340's higher average score and higher percentile rank make it the safer recommendation. The M260 is only preferable when Vulkan performance is the sole criterion, and even then, the margin is within the noise of typical benchmark variance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M340 has an average score of 5063, which is 12.5% higher than the R7 M260's average of 4499.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The M340 scores 4932 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3708 for the M260, a 33% advantage for the M340.

Q: Does the R7 M260 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the M260 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 5289 versus 5193 for the M340, a margin of 1.8%.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, while the R7 M340 has 320 shading units. The M260 also has 24 TMUs versus 20 for the M340.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The M340 has a memory bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s, while the M260 has 14.40 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life products. The M340 was released on May 4, 2015, and the M260 on June 10, 2014.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M340 | AMD Radeon R7 M260 |

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

| Chip | Meso | Topaz |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M300) | Gem System (R7 M200) |

| Release Date | May 4, 2015 | June 10, 2014 |

| Base Clock | 943 MHz | 940 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1021 MHz | 980 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.168 GPixel/s | 7.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.42 GTexel/s | 23.52 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 653.4 GFLOPS | 752.6 GFLOPS |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 4932 | 3708 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 5193 | 5289 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5063 | 4499 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 30 | 26 |

The shared specifications include the GCN 3.0 architecture, 28 nm process, 1,550 million transistors, 125 mm² die size, 2 GB DDR3 memory, 64-bit bus width, 8 ROPs, PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are end-of-life products with no listed TDP or launch MSRP.