AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between the two GPUs depending on the workload type. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M posts a score of 3974, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708. This gives NVIDIA a 6.7% advantage, a modest but consistent lead in this compute-oriented API. The delta is narrow enough that real-world differences in OpenCL acceleration would be minor, but the direction is unambiguous: the GT 740M is the stronger OpenCL performer.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a very different story. Here, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 dominates with a score of 5289 against the GT 740M’s 3459. That is a massive 52.9% lead for AMD, a gap that dwarfs the NVIDIA advantage in OpenCL. Vulkan is a lower-level, more modern graphics API, and the data suggests the AMD architecture extracts far more performance from it relative to the NVIDIA part. The R7 M260’s Vulkan score even exceeds its own OpenCL score by a wide margin, while the GT 740M drops sharply from OpenCL to Vulkan, losing 515 points. This pattern indicates the NVIDIA GPU is comparatively weaker in Vulkan workloads, possibly due to driver maturity or architectural design choices.

When looking at the aggregate average benchmark score, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 reaches 4499 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M settles at 3717 points. That puts AMD roughly 21% higher on average, a figure driven almost entirely by the Vulkan result. The OpenCL deficit is small enough that it does not offset the Vulkan advantage. The percentile ranking reinforces this: the R7 M260 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 740M sits at the 22nd percentile. Both are low-end parts by current standards, but the AMD chip holds a measurable edge overall.

The head-to-head record is exactly one win each, but the magnitude of those wins is not symmetric. NVIDIA’s OpenCL victory is by 6.7%, whereas AMD’s Vulkan victory is by 52.9%. In a direct comparison, the size of the winning margin matters more than the simple count of wins, and the data clearly favors the AMD part in the more demanding, modern API.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark results, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 is the better overall GPU for most users, especially those running Vulkan-based applications or games. Its average score of 4499 stands 21% above the GT 740M’s 3717, and its Vulkan score of 5289 is more than 50% higher than NVIDIA’s 3459. If a user’s workload leans on Vulkan, the choice is obvious: the R7 M260 is in a different performance class.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M is not without merit. Its OpenCL score of 3974 beats the AMD part by 6.7%, and it also has a lower thermal envelope, specified at 33 W, which can matter in thin laptops or systems with tight cooling. The GT 740M also features a higher base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz, compared to the AMD’s 940 MHz and 980 MHz, respectively. For users who rely heavily on OpenCL compute tasks, the GT 740M is the safer pick.

The tie in head-to-head wins (one each) means the decision hinges on which API the user cares about. The recorded data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-dependent choice. For general use, gaming, or anything modern, the R7 M260’s Vulkan dominance tips the scales. For legacy OpenCL applications, the GT 740M offers a slight but real advantage. The 26th percentile ranking for AMD versus 22nd for NVIDIA also confirms that the AMD part sits higher in the overall distribution of GPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 wins decisively in Vulkan. With a score of 5289 versus 3459, the advantage is 52.9%. This suggests the R7 M260 is the stronger choice for Vulkan-based game engines, modern emulators, or any software that leverages Vulkan’s explicit control over the GPU. The AMD part also wins the overall average benchmark score, 4499 to 3717, making it the better general-purpose mobile GPU in this pairing.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M wins in OpenCL, with a score of 3974 versus 3708, a 6.7% edge. This makes it the better option for compute workloads that still rely on OpenCL, such as certain video encoding filters, physics simulations, or professional OpenCL-accelerated applications. The GT 740M also has a lower TDP of 33 W, which is a functional advantage in power-constrained environments, although the R7 M260’s TDP is not recorded in the database, so a direct power comparison cannot be made beyond the NVIDIA figure.

Additionally, the GT 740M has a higher texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s versus the R7 M260’s 23.52 GTexel/s, and a slightly higher pixel rate of 8.264 GPixel/s versus 7.840 GPixel/s. These raw throughput numbers favor NVIDIA in texture-heavy and pixel-heavy workloads, even though the benchmark scores do not reflect a clear win in Vulkan. The GT 740M also has more TMUs (32 versus 24), which explains its texture rate advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has an average score of 4499, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3717. AMD is roughly 21% higher.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 5289 in Vulkan, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3459. That gives AMD a 52.9% lead.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GPU win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 3974 versus 3708 for AMD, a 6.7% advantage.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M has 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. NVIDIA’s version is slightly newer.

Q: What are the memory specifications for both GPUs?

A: Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, a 64-bit bus, and 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective for both.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture, built on the Topaz chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M uses the Kepler 2.0 architecture, built on the GK208 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge significantly: AMD packs 1,550 million transistors onto a 125 mm² die, giving a density of 12.4M transistors per mm². NVIDIA’s GK208 has 1,020 million transistors on a smaller 87 mm² die, with a density of 11.7M per mm². AMD’s chip is larger and denser, which partially explains its higher average performance.

The shading unit counts are identical at 384, but the texture units differ: AMD has 24 TMUs, NVIDIA has 32. Both have 8 ROPs. This explains why NVIDIA’s texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s is substantially higher than AMD’s 23.52 GTexel/s. The pixel rates are closer, with NVIDIA at 8.264 GPixel/s and AMD at 7.840 GPixel/s.

In terms of compute capabilities, the AMD part delivers 752.6 GFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, while the NVIDIA part delivers 793.3 GFLOPS in FP32 and has no listed FP16 capability. This gives NVIDIA a small theoretical FP32 edge, though the benchmark data does not show a corresponding OpenCL advantage beyond the 6.7% delta. The NVIDIA GPU also has a specified TDP of 33 W, while the AMD TDP is not recorded.

API support differs in one notable way: the AMD Radeon R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan versions differ slightly (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA). The AMD part also has a listed FP16 rate of 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1), while the NVIDIA part has no FP16 data.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows several fields where the two GPUs diverge. The manufacturer, chip, and architecture are different: AMD with GCN 3.0 and Topaz, NVIDIA with Kepler 2.0 and GK208. The generation names differ as well: AMD is part of the Gem System (R7 M200), while NVIDIA is in the GeForce 700M series.

The process node is identical (28 nm, TSMC), but the transistor count and die size favor AMD: 1,550 million transistors on 125 mm² versus 1,020 million on 87 mm². Transistor density is also higher for AMD at 12.4M per mm² versus 11.7M per mm².

Clock speeds differ: the AMD base clock is 940 MHz with a boost of 980 MHz, while the NVIDIA base clock is 980 MHz with a boost of 1033 MHz. Memory clock and effective speed are identical at 900 MHz and 1800 Mbps, respectively. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all the same: 2 GB DDR3, 64-bit, 14.40 GB/s.

The shading units match at 384, but TMUs differ (24 for AMD, 32 for NVIDIA). ROPs are the same at 8. Pixel rate and texture rate favor NVIDIA: 8.264 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s versus 7.840 GPixel/s and 23.52 GTexel/s. FP32 is slightly higher for NVIDIA at 793.3 GFLOPS versus 752.6 GFLOPS. FP16 is listed for AMD (752.6 GFLOPS) but not for NVIDIA.

The NVIDIA GPU has a TDP of 33 W, a slot width of MXM Module, and no power connectors. The AMD part has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connectors. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent” for NVIDIA, while AMD has no entry.

Release dates differ by about a year: AMD launched on 2014-06-10, NVIDIA on 2013-06-19. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor of GeForce 600M and successor of GeForce 800M; AMD has a predecessor of Solar System and successor of Polaris Mobile. Both are end-of-life. No launch MSRP is recorded for either GPU.