AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database presents an unusual generational clash. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, a desktop card from 2010 built on 40 nm Fermi, posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4893. The AMD Radeon R7 M260, a mobile chip from 2014 built on 28 nm GCN 3.0, scores 3708 in the same test. That is a 32% gap in favor of the older NVIDIA part. The GTS 450 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded. However, the R7 M260 counters with a Vulkan score of 5289, a test the GTS 450 does not appear in. The verdict depends on workload and platform.

For users running OpenCL compute tasks, the GTS 450 is the clear choice. Its score sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M260 sits at the 26th percentile. The delta between them, 32%, is substantial. The GTS 450 also matches or beats several modern entries: it trails the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB by just 0.2%, and the AMD FirePro W5130M by 0.2%, while leading the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX by 0.5%. The R7 M260, by contrast, trails the AMD FirePro W4190M by 0.1%, the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 1.3%, the AMD Radeon RX 560 by 1.5%, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 by 1.7%. The data suggests the GTS 450 is more competitive against its nearest rivals in OpenCL.

For Vulkan workloads, the R7 M260 is the only option with a recorded score. Its 5289 points indicate a capability the GTS 450 cannot match, simply because the older card has no Vulkan entry. The R7 M260 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). That feature-level difference matters for modern gaming APIs. Users who prioritize API compatibility and Vulkan performance should look to the R7 M260. Users who prioritize raw OpenCL compute throughput should pick the GTS 450 despite its age.

The GTS 450 launched with an MSRP of 129 USD. The R7 M260 has no recorded launch price. Neither card is in production; both are end-of-life parts. The choice is not about new purchases but about understanding historical performance or repurposing old hardware.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip, built on Fermi architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The die is 238 mm² and contains 1,170 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per mm². The R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip, built on GCN 3.0, also manufactured by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The die is 125 mm² and contains 1,550 million transistors, giving a density of 12.4 million per mm². The R7 M260 packs more transistors into a smaller area, a direct result of the newer process node.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The GTS 450 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4x difference in bandwidth, favoring the NVIDIA part. The R7 M260 compensates with double the capacity, but the narrow bus and slower memory type limit its throughput.

Compute resources tell a mixed story. The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD chip has twice the shading units but fewer TMUs and half the ROPs. The pixel rate reflects this: the R7 M260 hits 7.840 GPixel/s versus 6.264 GPixel/s for the GTS 450. The texture rate is close, 23.52 GTexel/s for AMD versus 25.06 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 compute favors AMD at 752.6 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS. The R7 M260 also supports FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1), a feature the GTS 450 lacks entirely.

Clock behavior differs. The GTS 450 lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The R7 M260 has a base clock of 940 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz, with a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The AMD chip runs faster in raw clock terms, but memory bandwidth remains the bottleneck.

Power and physical specs separate them further. The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W, requires a 6-pin power connector, and recommends a 300 W PSU. It is a dual-slot card, 210 mm long and 111 mm high. The R7 M260 has no recorded TDP, no power connector, no slot width, and no dimensions. It is a mobile part, likely soldered and power-constrained. The GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16; the R7 M260 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The newer interface offers more bandwidth per lane, but the x8 width halves the total compared to x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708. The GTS 450 is 32% ahead in this test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260 support Vulkan?

A: Yes. The R7 M260 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289 and lists Vulkan 1.2.170 in its API support. The GTS 450 has no Vulkan entry in the database.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The GTS 450 has 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth from 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The R7 M260 has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The NVIDIA part has roughly four times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the DirectX feature levels?

A: The GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The AMD part supports a higher feature level.

Q: How do the two compare in transistor density?

A: The GTS 450 packs 1,170 million transistors into 238 mm², a density of 4.9 million per mm². The R7 M260 packs 1,550 million transistors into 125 mm², a density of 12.4 million per mm². The AMD chip is roughly 2.5 times denser.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, while the GTS 450 has 192. The AMD part has twice as many, though its texture units (24) and ROPs (8) are lower than the NVIDIA part's 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GF106 (NVIDIA) versus Topaz (AMD)
• Architecture: Fermi versus GCN 3.0
• Generation: GeForce 400 versus Gem System (R7 M200)
• Process node: 40 nm versus 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,170 million versus 1,550 million
• Die size: 238 mm² versus 125 mm²
• Transistor density: 4.9M / mm² versus 12.4M / mm²
• Base clock: None versus 940 MHz
• Boost clock: None versus 980 MHz
• Memory clock: 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory size: 1024 MB versus 2 GB
• Memory type: GDDR5 versus DDR3
• Bus width: 128 bit versus 64 bit
• Bandwidth: 57.73 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s
• Shading units: 192 versus 384
• TMUs: 32 versus 24
• ROPs: 16 versus 8
• Pixel rate: 6.264 GPixel/s versus 7.840 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 25.06 GTexel/s versus 23.52 GTexel/s
• FP32: 601.3 GFLOPS versus 752.6 GFLOPS
• FP16: None versus 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 106 W versus none
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus none
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus none
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus none
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan: None versus 1.2.170
• Dimensions: 210 mm x 111 mm versus none
• Release date: 2010-09-12 versus 2014-06-10
• Predecessor: GeForce 200 versus Solar System
• Successor: GeForce 500 versus Polaris Mobile

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTS 450 scores 4893, the R7 M260 scores 3708, and the delta is 32% in favor of NVIDIA. This is the defining result of the matchup. The GTS 450's GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus deliver 57.73 GB/s, which likely explains the OpenCL advantage. The R7 M260's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus provides only 14.40 GB/s, a severe constraint for compute workloads that move data frequently.

The R7 M260 does have a Vulkan score of 5289. The GTS 450 has no Vulkan result, so no direct comparison exists. But the presence of a Vulkan score, combined with DirectX 12 (12_0) support, indicates the AMD part handles modern graphics APIs. The GTS 450's DirectX 12 (11_0) support is a lower feature level, and its lack of Vulkan means it cannot run Vulkan titles at all.

In terms of nearest rivals, the GTS 450 sits close to several modern cards. It is 0.2% behind the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB and the AMD FirePro W5130M, and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX. The R7 M260 trails its nearest rivals: 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W4190M, 1.3% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530, 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560, and 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M230. The data suggests the GTS 450, despite its age, holds up better in OpenCL against a wider field.

Where Each One Wins

The GTS 450 wins in OpenCL compute. Its 4893 score versus 3708 is a decisive 32% margin. The memory bandwidth advantage, 57.73 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, is the likely driver. The GTS 450 also has more TMUs (32 versus 24) and more ROPs (16 versus 8), which helps in texture-heavy and raster-bound tasks. Its pixel rate is lower (6.264 GPixel/s versus 7.840 GPixel/s), but the bandwidth dominance overshadows that.

The R7 M260 wins in API modernity. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan and only DirectX 12 (11_0). The R7 M260 also has higher FP32 compute (752.6 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS) and FP16 support at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1). Its shading unit count is double that of the GTS 450 (384 versus 192). For applications that leverage these features, the R7 M260 is the better fit.

The R7 M260 also wins on memory capacity, with 2 GB versus 1024 MB. For workloads that require larger working sets but tolerate low bandwidth, the extra capacity matters. The GTS 450 cannot hold as much data on-chip.

Power consumption favors the R7 M260 by omission. The GTS 450 has a 106 W TDP, a 6-pin connector, and a 300 W PSU recommendation. The R7 M260 has no recorded power draw, no connector, and no PSU suggestion, indicating a lower-power mobile design. Users building a low-power system would prefer the R7 M260.

The GTS 450 wins on physical integration. It has a defined dual-slot form factor, 210 mm length, 111 mm height, and display outputs (2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a). The R7 M260 has no dimensions or outputs, reflecting its mobile nature. For desktop use, the GTS 450 is a drop-in card. For laptops, the R7 M260 is the only option.

The release dates tell a story. The GTS 450 came out in 2010, the R7 M260 in 2014. The four-year gap shows in the architecture: 40 nm Fermi versus 28 nm GCN 3.0. Yet the older card wins the only shared benchmark. That is a surprising result, one that highlights the importance of memory bandwidth over shading unit count in OpenCL workloads.

The percentile rankings confirm the split. The GTS 450 is at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, the R7 M260 at the 26th. Both are near the bottom of the performance distribution. Neither is a high-end part. But within this pairing, the GTS 450 is the stronger OpenCL performer, while the R7 M260 is the more capable modern-API part. Users should choose based on which workload matters more: compute throughput or API compatibility.