AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti occupy different tiers of the mobile and desktop GPU landscape, separated by two years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti winning both head-to-head tests by substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129 against the R7 M260’s 3,708, a delta of -79.5% for the AMD part. The Vulkan test narrows the gap slightly but remains lopsided: 10,001 for NVIDIA versus 5,289 for AMD, a -47.1% difference. These results frame the entire comparison—one GPU is a low-power mobile part from 2014, the other a desktop-class chip from 2016 with nearly double the shading units and vastly superior memory bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL result is the clearest indicator of raw compute disparity. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti delivers 18,129 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 manages only 3,708. That is a 79.5% deficit for the AMD part, meaning the GTX 1050 Ti is roughly 4.9 times faster in this workload. The GTX 1050 Ti’s FP32 throughput of 2.138 TFLOPS dwarfs the R7 M260’s 752.6 GFLOPS, and the memory bandwidth differential is even starker: 112.1 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. OpenCL performance here correlates strongly with these raw specifications, and the data leaves no ambiguity about which GPU handles compute-heavy tasks.

Vulkan results tell a similar story but with a smaller relative gap. The GTX 1050 Ti scores 10,001 points against 5,289 for the R7 M260, a 47.1% difference. This narrower margin suggests that the R7 M260’s GCN 3.0 architecture handles Vulkan’s low-level API more efficiently relative to its hardware resources than it does OpenCL. Still, the NVIDIA part wins outright, and the absolute difference of 4,712 points remains significant. The GTX 1050 Ti’s Vulkan 1.4 support, compared to the R7 M260’s Vulkan 1.2.170, may contribute to its stronger showing, though driver optimizations and hardware scheduling also play roles not captured in spec sheets.

Neither GPU wins in any other recorded benchmark category—the head-to-head data lists only these two tests. The GTX 1050 Ti’s average benchmark score of 4,193 across all recorded tests is lower than its OpenCL and Vulkan scores alone, because it also includes older DirectX and Passmark tests where it scores lower (e.g., Passmark DirectX 9 at 104). The R7 M260’s average of 4,499 is actually higher than its individual OpenCL and Vulkan scores, pulling from a smaller benchmark set. This discrepancy means the R7 M260’s aggregate percentile (26th) is slightly higher than the GTX 1050 Ti’s (25th), despite losing every direct comparison. The data shows that average scores across mixed workloads can mislead—head-to-head results are the more reliable signal.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures could not be more different. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses GCN 3.0 on a 28 nm TSMC process, packing 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti uses Pascal on a 14 nm Samsung process, with 3,300 million transistors in a 132 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: 25.0M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 12.4M per mm² for AMD. This is a direct consequence of the process node advantage—14 nm allows nearly double the transistor density of 28 nm, enabling the GTX 1050 Ti to fit more compute units into a similar physical footprint.

Core counts amplify the architectural gap. The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. That is exactly double the shading units and TMUs, and four times the ROPs. Pixel rate follows: 44.54 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 7.840 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rate is 66.82 GTexel/s versus 23.52 GTexel/s. These are not incremental differences—they represent a completely different performance class. The GTX 1050 Ti’s 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is 2.8 times the R7 M260’s 752.6 GFLOPS.

Memory subsystems diverge even more sharply. The R7 M260 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1050 Ti uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.1 GB/s—a 7.8x bandwidth advantage. Memory clock rates reflect this: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the AMD part versus 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA part. The R7 M260’s memory configuration is a major bottleneck for any workload that streams data, which is most modern graphics work. Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA: base 1291 MHz and boost 1392 MHz, versus 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost for AMD.

Feature support shows a smaller gap. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 1050 Ti is at feature level 12_1 while the R7 M260 is at 12_0. OpenGL 4.6 is identical. Vulkan versions differ: 1.4 on NVIDIA versus 1.2.170 on AMD. The GTX 1050 Ti also has a TDP of 75 W, a dual-slot cooler, no power connectors, and a recommended 250 W PSU. The R7 M260 has no TDP listed, suggesting it is a low-power mobile part. Bus interface differs as well: PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA versus x8 for AMD. Display outputs are only specified for NVIDIA: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the superior GPU in every measurable head-to-head comparison. It wins both OpenCL and Vulkan tests, and its hardware specifications—double the shading units, 7.8x the memory bandwidth, 2.8x the FP32 throughput—make it the clear choice for any compute or graphics workload. The 79.5% OpenCL deficit and 47.1% Vulkan deficit for the R7 M260 are not edge cases; they represent consistent, across-the-board performance gaps. The GTX 1050 Ti also supports newer API features (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4) and has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 2 GB of DDR3, which matters for texture-heavy applications and larger frame buffers.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 is not without context. Its average benchmark score of 4,499 is actually higher than the GTX 1050 Ti’s 4,193, and it sits at the 26th percentile versus the NVIDIA part’s 25th. However, this is an artifact of different benchmark suites—the R7 M260’s limited test set (only OpenCL and Vulkan) skews its average upward, while the GTX 1050 Ti’s broader suite includes older DirectX and Passmark tests where scores are low. The nearest rivals for each GPU confirm the positioning: the R7 M260 sits near the AMD FirePro W4190M (delta -0.1%) and Intel HD Graphics P530 (delta -1.3%), while the GTX 1050 Ti is close to the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (delta 0.6%) and NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (delta 1%). These are entirely different performance neighborhoods.

For users who need GPU compute, gaming, or any modern 3D workload, the GTX 1050 Ti is the only viable option between the two. The R7 M260 is end-of-life, released in June 2014, while the GTX 1050 Ti came in October 2016. The R7 M260’s 28 nm process and DDR3 memory are generations behind. The GTX 1050 Ti’s launch MSRP was 139 USD, though pricing should not factor into the performance analysis. The verdict is unambiguous: the GTX 1050 Ti wins on every direct benchmark, every core count, and every memory metric. The R7 M260 should only be considered for legacy systems or workloads that specifically require its low power draw and minimal thermal footprint.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has an average benchmark score of 4,499, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti averages 4,193. However, this is misleading because the R7 M260 is only tested in OpenCL and Vulkan, while the GTX 1050 Ti includes older DirectX and Passmark tests where scores are lower.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1050 Ti in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3,708 for the R7 M260, a delta of -79.5% for the AMD part. This means the NVIDIA GPU is roughly 4.9 times faster in this workload.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has 112.1 GB/s bandwidth using 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The R7 M260 has 14.40 GB/s using 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. That is a 7.8x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels. The GTX 1050 Ti supports 12_1, while the R7 M260 supports 12_0. OpenGL 4.6 is identical on both.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, exactly double the R7 M260’s 384. The NVIDIA part also has 48 TMUs versus 24, and 32 ROPs versus 8.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti uses a 14 nm Samsung process with 3,300 million transistors, while the R7 M260 uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,550 million transistors. The transistor density is 25.0M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 12.4M per mm² for AMD.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti wins in:

• OpenCL compute: 18,129 versus 3,708, a 79.5% lead. This covers general-purpose GPU compute, physics simulations, and any workload using OpenCL.
• Vulkan graphics: 10,001 versus 5,289, a 47.1% lead. Vulkan-based games and applications see a significant advantage.
• Pixel throughput: 44.54 GPixel/s versus 7.840 GPixel/s, a 5.7x advantage for rasterization-heavy tasks.
• Texture throughput: 66.82 GTexel/s versus 23.52 GTexel/s, a 2.8x lead for texture-bound scenes.
• Memory bandwidth: 112.1 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a 7.8x advantage for large textures, high resolutions, and data streaming.
• FP32 compute: 2.138 TFLOPS versus 752.6 GFLOPS, a 2.8x lead for shader-heavy effects.
• API support: DirectX 12_1 versus 12_0, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170, enabling newer rendering features.
• Memory capacity: 4 GB versus 2 GB, which matters for modern games and larger datasets.

AMD Radeon R7 M260 wins in:

• Aggregate benchmark percentile: 26th percentile versus 25th, a marginal edge driven by its limited benchmark suite.
• Average benchmark score: 4,499 versus 4,193, again an artifact of the smaller test set rather than real-world superiority.
• Power profile: No TDP listed, implying a lower power draw than the GTX 1050 Ti’s 75 W, which may suit ultra-low-power laptops.
• Transistor efficiency: The R7 M260 uses 1,550 million transistors versus 3,300 million, so it is less complex and potentially cheaper to produce, though this is not a performance win.
• Release timing: Older (June 2014) means it may be found in legacy systems where the GTX 1050 Ti cannot be installed due to form factor or power constraints.

The data shows zero head-to-head wins for the AMD part. Every direct benchmark and every relevant hardware specification favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. The R7 M260’s only apparent advantages are statistical artifacts of its limited benchmark coverage or contextual factors like power consumption, which are not measured in the provided benchmarks. For any application that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan—which includes most modern games and compute tasks—the GTX 1050 Ti is the definitive choice.