AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M are two end-of-life mobile graphics processors from the 2013-2014 era, aimed at thin-and-light laptops and entry-level gaming. Both parts were built on the same 28 nm TSMC process, but they diverge sharply in architecture, memory design, and compute characteristics. The database records an average benchmark score of 4499 for the R7 M260 and 3953 for the GT 745M, placing them at the 26th and 23rd percentiles of all GPUs respectively. This puts them in the same performance class, but the way they achieve that level differs significantly, and the data shows that each card has distinct strengths depending on the workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 records an average score of 4499, which is 546 points higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M’s 3953 average. The R7 M260 also sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, three points above the GT 745M’s 23rd percentile.

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

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 M260 scores 3708, which is 3.6% ahead of the GT 745M’s 3580. This is the only head-to-head benchmark where the AMD part wins.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card win any direct benchmark comparison?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan the GT 745M scores 5502, which is 3.9% higher than the R7 M260’s 5289. The database records one win for each card in the head-to-head tests.

Q: What memory type does each GPU use, and does it affect bandwidth?

A: The R7 M260 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 745M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s, which is over four times the raw bandwidth of the AMD part.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count despite a smaller die?

A: The R7 M260 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the GT 745M has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The AMD chip has a higher transistor density of 12.4 million per mm² compared to 10.8 million per mm² for NVIDIA.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each card?

A: Both GPUs have exactly 384 shading units. However, the R7 M260 operates at a base clock of 940 MHz with a boost of 980 MHz, while the GT 745M does not list base or boost clocks in the database, relying instead on its memory clock of 1000 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The R7 M260 is built on AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Topaz chip, while the GT 745M uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip. This is a fundamental split. GCN 3.0 was designed with asynchronous compute and a more flexible scheduling model, which shows up in the compute-oriented benchmarks. Kepler, on the other hand, was optimized for geometric throughput and power efficiency, but its compute capabilities are more limited in comparison.

The process node is identical: both are fabricated by TSMC on 28 nm. The R7 M260 has a larger transistor budget at 1,550 million versus 1,270 million, and a slightly larger die at 125 mm² versus 118 mm². This gives AMD a higher transistor density, 12.4 million per mm², which typically allows for more complex logic in the same area.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge most sharply. The R7 M260 uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, resulting in 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 745M uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, giving it 64.00 GB/s, a 4.44x advantage in memory throughput. This is a critical difference because memory bandwidth heavily influences texture fill rates and high-resolution workloads, but the R7 M260 compensates with higher core clocks.

Compute resources differ despite the same shading unit count. The R7 M260 has 24 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs, while the GT 745M has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate favors AMD at 7.840 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s, but texture rate also favors AMD at 23.52 GTexel/s versus 17.57 GTexel/s. The R7 M260’s FP32 throughput is 752.6 GFLOPS, nearly double the GT 745M’s 421.6 GFLOPS. The AMD part also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with 752.6 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA card has no listed FP16 capability.

API support is another area of difference. The R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GT 745M also lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The DirectX feature level matters: 12_0 on AMD versus 11_0 on NVIDIA, which means the R7 M260 can expose more modern DX12 features in titles that use them.

The GT 745M has a rated TDP of 45 W and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The R7 M260 has no TDP listed in the database, but its bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8, whereas the GT 745M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, giving NVIDIA twice the bus bandwidth for data transfers from the CPU.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M260 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 752.6 GFLOPS is 78.5% higher than the GT 745M’s 421.6 GFLOPS. This translates directly to OpenCL workloads, where the AMD card leads by 3.6%. For tasks like OpenCL-based image processing, physics simulations, or any GPU compute that can leverage the higher shader clock and FP16 support, the R7 M260 is the stronger choice. The higher pixel and texture rates also mean that in older DirectX 11 games that are fill-rate limited, the AMD part should push more pixels per frame, assuming the memory bandwidth does not bottleneck it.

The GT 745M wins in memory bandwidth and Vulkan performance. The 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a massive advantage over the R7 M260’s 14.40 GB/s. This matters for modern games that stream large textures, higher resolutions, or anti-aliasing techniques that require frequent memory access. The Vulkan benchmark shows the NVIDIA card winning by 3.9%, which suggests that the Kepler architecture’s driver stack or memory subsystem handles Vulkan’s explicit command buffers more efficiently. The 128-bit bus also makes the GT 745M more consistent in scenarios where the R7 M260 would stall waiting for memory.

For daily laptop use, the GT 745M’s 45 W TDP is a concrete figure, while the R7 M260 has no power rating in the database. This means the NVIDIA part is designed for a specific thermal envelope, which can affect laptop cooling choices, but the R7 M260’s power behavior is unquantified here.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification except shading units and memory size.

• Architecture: GCN 3.0 (AMD) versus Kepler (NVIDIA)
• Chip: Topaz versus GK107
• Transistors: 1,550 million versus 1,270 million
• Die size: 125 mm² versus 118 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.4M / mm² versus 10.8M / mm²
• Base clock: 940 MHz (AMD only)
• Boost clock: 980 MHz (AMD only)
• Memory clock: 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective (AMD) versus 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective (NVIDIA)
• Memory type: DDR3 versus GDDR5
• Bus width: 64 bit versus 128 bit
• Bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s
• TMUs: 24 versus 32
• ROPs: 8 versus 16
• Pixel rate: 7.840 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 23.52 GTexel/s versus 17.57 GTexel/s
• FP32: 752.6 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS
• FP16: 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1) versus not listed
• TDP: not listed versus 45 W
• Slot width: not listed versus IGP
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: not listed versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan version: 1.2.170 versus 1.2.175
• Release date: 2014-06-10 versus 2013-03-31
• Predecessor: Solar System versus GeForce 600M
• Successor: Polaris Mobile versus GeForce 800M

Both cards have 2 GB of memory and 384 shading units, but the memory subsystem and clock strategy are completely different.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct benchmark comparisons, and each GPU claims one victory.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 M260 scores 3708 against the GT 745M’s 3580. The delta is 3.6% in favor of AMD. This aligns with the FP32 compute gap: the R7 M260’s 752.6 GFLOPS is nearly double the NVIDIA part’s 421.6 GFLOPS, and OpenCL workloads tend to scale with raw shader throughput. The R7 M260’s higher pixel and texture rates also contribute to its lead in this test, as OpenCL often exercises memory and ALU paths together.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GT 745M scores 5502 against the R7 M260’s 5289. The delta is 3.9% in favor of NVIDIA. This is a different picture. Vulkan is a lower-overhead API that rewards efficient command submission and memory access patterns. The GT 745M’s 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and 128-bit bus give it a clear advantage in buffer transfers and texture streaming. The NVIDIA card’s Vulkan driver version is 1.2.175, slightly newer than AMD’s 1.2.170, which could also contribute to the result.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this split. The R7 M260’s average of 4499 is 12.1% higher than the GT 745M’s 3953. However, the nearest rivals for each card show they are in a tight pack. The R7 M260 is 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W4190M, 1.3% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530, and 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560. The GT 745M is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M420 and NVIDIA GeForce 830M, and 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000. This indicates that neither card is a standout in its class; the R7 M260 is slightly ahead on average, but both are near the bottom of the modern GPU hierarchy.

The Verdict

Choosing between these two depends entirely on workload. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 is the pick for compute-heavy tasks. Its FP32 throughput of 752.6 GFLOPS, higher pixel rate, and texture rate, plus FP16 support, make it the stronger candidate for OpenCL applications, GPU-accelerated filters, and older DirectX 11 games where fill rate matters more than bandwidth. The 3.6% OpenCL win and the 12.1% higher average score support this.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M is the pick for memory-bandwidth-sensitive scenarios. The 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a decisive advantage, and the Vulkan benchmark win of 3.9% shows that it handles modern low-level APIs better. The 128-bit bus and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface give it more room for data-intensive workloads like high-resolution texture streaming or Vulkan-based titles. The 45 W TDP is also a concrete power figure, which matters for laptop design constraints.

In direct competition, the R7 M260 wins OpenCL by 3.6%, and the GT 745M wins Vulkan by 3.9%. The average scores favor AMD by 546 points. For a user who runs a mix of older compute workloads and OpenCL-centric apps, the R7 M260 is the safer choice. For a user who prioritizes Vulkan compatibility and memory bandwidth, the GT 745M performs better in that specific test. Neither card is modern, but the data shows a genuine trade-off: raw compute power versus memory throughput. The R7 M260 is the better all-rounder based on average score, but the GT 745M is not without its own targeted strengths.