AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two mobile GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scores 4,855 points against the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s 3,708 points, giving NVIDIA a 30.9% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a substantial gap that places the GTX 560M in a different performance tier for compute workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape reinforces this separation. The GTX 560M sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M260 sits at the 26th percentile. Though the percentile gap appears small, the raw score difference tells the real story: the GTX 560M’s average benchmark score is 4,855, whereas the R7 M260’s average is 4,499. The R7 M260 does have a second benchmark result — a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5,289 — but no comparable Vulkan result exists for the GTX 560M, so that data point cannot be used for a head-to-head comparison. It does, however, suggest that the R7 M260 has untapped potential in newer API workloads that the OpenCL result alone does not capture.

Examining nearest rivals adds context. The GTX 560M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4,844 points, a mere 0.2% behind. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4,867, edging out the GTX 560M by 0.2%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 is 0.8% ahead at 4,893, and even the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB — a vastly newer and more powerful desktop card — only scores 4,901, just 0.9% higher. This clustering suggests the GTX 560M performs near the ceiling of its immediate class, with virtually nothing separating it from much newer mobile parts.

The R7 M260, by contrast, sits closest to the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4,505 points, a 0.1% deficit. The Intel HD Graphics P530 is 1.3% ahead at 4,560, the AMD Radeon RX 560 is 1.5% ahead at 4,569, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is 1.7% ahead at 4,577. The R7 M260 is therefore at the bottom of its immediate competitive cluster, trailing every listed rival. This is a striking inversion: the older GTX 560M outperforms its newer AMD counterpart by a wide margin in OpenCL, despite the R7 M260 having a more modern architecture and higher theoretical compute figures.

The deltaPct values are telling. A 30.9% win for the GTX 560M is not a statistical artifact; it represents a real and repeatable performance separation. When a GPU from 2011 beats a GPU from 2014 by nearly a third in a compute benchmark, the implications for driver maturity, memory subsystem design, and architectural efficiency are worth investigating. The OpenCL result suggests that raw specifications — more shading units, higher clock speeds, larger memory bus — do not automatically translate into better real-world performance.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M wins the only shared benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) with a score of 4,855 against the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s 3,708, a 30.9% advantage.

Q: How does the R7 M260 perform in Vulkan, and can it be compared to the GTX 560M?

A: The R7 M260 scores 5,289 in Geekbench Vulkan. However, the GTX 560M has no Vulkan benchmark result in the data, so no direct comparison is possible for that API.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each GPU?

A: The GTX 560M ranks in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M260 ranks in the 26th percentile. The GTX 560M’s average benchmark score is 4,855, and the R7 M260’s average is 4,499.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has 384 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M has 192 shading units. Despite having double the shading units, the R7 M260 scores 30.9% lower in OpenCL.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 560M uses 1,536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M260 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth — a substantial memory bandwidth disadvantage.

Q: Does the R7 M260 support any newer APIs that the GTX 560M lacks?

A: Yes. The R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 560M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies from different eras. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M is built on the GF116 chip using Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a more advanced 28 nm node. This process difference is significant: the GTX 560M has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per mm². The R7 M260 packs 1,550 million transistors into a much smaller 125 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.4 million per mm² — roughly 2.5 times denser. This density advantage reflects the newer manufacturing process.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The GTX 560M has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The R7 M260 runs at a 940 MHz base clock with a 980 MHz boost, and its memory runs at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). The AMD part is clearly clocked higher, but as the benchmark results show, higher clocks do not compensate for other architectural deficiencies.

The memory subsystem is where the gap becomes stark. The GTX 560M uses GDDR5 memory with a 192-bit bus, producing 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260 uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s — less than a quarter of the NVIDIA part’s bandwidth. This is likely a primary contributor to the OpenCL performance disparity, as compute workloads are often memory-bandwidth sensitive.

Shader configuration also differs dramatically. The GTX 560M has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster output units (ROPs). The R7 M260 has 384 shading units — exactly double — but only 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The R7 M260’s pixel rate is 7.840 GPixel/s versus the GTX 560M’s 6.200 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 23.52 GTexel/s versus 24.80 GTexel/s. Interestingly, the R7 M260 has a higher pixel rate but a lower texture rate, despite having more shading units. Its FP32 performance is 752.6 GFLOPS, higher than the GTX 560M’s 595.2 GFLOPS, and it also lists FP16 performance at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The GTX 560M has no FP16 figure listed.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The GTX 560M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The R7 M260 has no TDP listed, no slot width, no power connectors, and no display output information. Its bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8. The GTX 560M has no power connectors listed either.

Both GPUs are end-of-life products. The GTX 560M was released on May 29, 2011, as part of the GeForce 500M generation, succeeding the GeForce 400M and preceding the GeForce 600M. The R7 M260 was released on June 10, 2014, belonging to the Gem System (R7 M200) generation, succeeding the Solar System and preceding Polaris Mobile. Neither has a launch MSRP listed.

# The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M is the stronger GPU in direct compute performance, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by 30.9%. Its OpenCL score of 4,855 places it near the top of its immediate competitive cluster, while the R7 M260’s score of 3,708 places it at the bottom of its cluster. For anyone prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance, the GTX 560M is the obvious choice from these two options.

However, the R7 M260 is not without merits. Its Vulkan score of 5,289 suggests that in modern API workloads, it may perform considerably better than its OpenCL result implies. The GTX 560M has no Vulkan support at all, so any application requiring Vulkan will only work on the AMD part. Additionally, the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) fully, whereas the GTX 560M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) — a meaningful difference for compatibility with newer games and applications.

The R7 M260 also has a higher theoretical compute ceiling: 752.6 GFLOPS FP32 versus 595.2 GFLOPS, and it doubles the shading unit count. The fact that it loses so decisively in OpenCL despite these advantages points to architectural inefficiencies or driver limitations that the raw specifications do not reveal. The memory bandwidth disparity (14.40 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s) is likely the critical bottleneck.

For users who need maximum compute throughput in OpenCL-based workloads, the GTX 560M is the superior choice. For users who need Vulkan support, modern DirectX 12 features, or higher pixel fill rates, the R7 M260 is the only option. The GTX 560M’s 28th percentile ranking versus the R7 M260’s 26th percentile is consistent with the overall benchmark advantage, but the R7 M260’s Vulkan capability could close that gap in specific use cases.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip with Fermi 2.0 architecture on a 40 nm process, while the R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip with GCN 3.0 on 28 nm. Transistor counts are 1,170 million versus 1,550 million, with die sizes of 238 mm² versus 125 mm², resulting in transistor densities of 4.9M/mm² versus 12.4M/mm².

Clock speeds: the GTX 560M has no base or boost clock listed, with a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The R7 M260 has a 940 MHz base clock, 980 MHz boost, and 900 MHz memory (1,800 Mbps effective).

Memory: the GTX 560M has 1,536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M260 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: the GTX 560M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rates are 6.200 GPixel/s versus 7.840 GPixel/s; texture rates are 24.80 GTexel/s versus 23.52 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 595.2 GFLOPS versus 752.6 GFLOPS, with the R7 M260 also listing FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS.

Power and interface: the GTX 560M has a 75 W TDP, MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, and MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The R7 M260 has no TDP, slot width, or power connector data, and uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support: the GTX 560M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan. The R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Release dates: May 29, 2011 for the GTX 560M, June 10, 2014 for the R7 M260. Both are end-of-life with no launch MSRP listed.

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M wins decisively in OpenCL compute performance, scoring 4,855 versus 3,708 — a 30.9% advantage. This makes it the better choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL acceleration, such as certain rendering tasks, physics simulations, or compute-heavy applications. Its 60.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than four times that of the R7 M260, which likely explains its dominance in memory-intensive operations. Its nearest rival cluster — the 940MX, R6 M255DX, GTS 450, and even the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB — all score within 0.9% of the GTX 560M, indicating that it performs at the top of its class despite its age.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 wins in areas where the GTX 560M cannot compete at all. Its Vulkan score of 5,289 demonstrates capability in modern GPU APIs, and its DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a full version ahead of the GTX 560M’s DirectX 12 (11_0). For users running applications that require Vulkan or the latest DirectX 12 features, the R7 M260 is the only viable option. Its higher pixel rate (7.840 GPixel/s versus 6.200 GPixel/s) could also benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks, and its 2 GB memory capacity is larger than the 1,536 MB on the GTX 560M, which may help with larger textures or datasets — though the dramatically lower bandwidth may negate this advantage in practice.

The R7 M260 also has the edge in raw FP32 compute (752.6 GFLOPS versus 595.2 GFLOPS) and double the shading units, though the benchmark data shows this theoretical advantage does not translate into OpenCL wins. The R7 M260’s newer 28 nm process and higher transistor density suggest better power efficiency potential, though no TDP data is available for the AMD part to confirm this.

For pure compute performance in OpenCL, the GTX 560M is the clear winner. For API compatibility and modern feature support, the R7 M260 takes the crown. The choice ultimately depends on whether the workload is legacy OpenCL-based — where NVIDIA dominates — or requires modern graphics APIs, where only the AMD part can deliver.