AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and AMD Radeon R7 M260 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they occupy very different tiers of performance. The data available for direct comparison is limited to two compute-oriented tests, yet the results are decisive. The Quadro M3000M leads by an enormous margin in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, reflecting its position as a professional-grade part with far more hardware resources. The R7 M260, by contrast, is a low-end entry-level chip. This analysis will break down the benchmark results, highlight where each GPU wins, and provide a clear verdict based solely on the numbers in the FACT PACK.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data consists of two benchmark tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the clear winner, with no tests where the AMD Radeon R7 M260 comes out ahead.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 points, while the R7 M260 scores 3,708 points. This translates to a 348.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part. In absolute terms, the Quadro M3000M is over four times faster. This is not a marginal win; it is a complete blowout in general-purpose GPU compute throughput. The Quadro M3000M’s score is driven by its 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, which dwarf the R7 M260’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar story, though the gap narrows slightly. The Quadro M3000M scores 16,668 points against the R7 M260’s 5,289 points, resulting in a 215.1% lead for NVIDIA. While the R7 M260 performs relatively better in Vulkan than in OpenCL, it still trails by a factor of more than three. The Quadro M3000M’s Vulkan score is actually slightly higher than its OpenCL score, while the R7 M260’s Vulkan score is significantly higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the AMD part has more efficient Vulkan drivers or architecture for this workload.

Looking at the overall average benchmark scores, the picture remains consistent. The Quadro M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4,621, while the R7 M260 averages 4,499. While this average is much closer, it is heavily influenced by the fact that the R7 M260 only has two benchmark results in the pack, both of which are compute-focused. The Quadro M3000M has nine results, including several DirectX and Passmark tests that pull its average down. The head-to-head deltas are the most reliable indicators of relative performance, and they show a massive NVIDIA advantage.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available data, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins every single benchmark category. It holds a 2-0 win record in the head-to-head tests. The Quadro M3000M is the superior choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan compute, including rendering, scientific simulation, and GPU-accelerated video processing. Its 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the R7 M260’s 752.6 GFLOPS, making it the clear pick for raw number-crunching tasks.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 does not win in any tested category. However, its data suggests it is a more power-efficient or thermally-constrained design. While the Quadro M3000M has a TDP of 75 W, the R7 M260’s TDP is not listed in the FACT PACK, but its lower clock speeds and smaller die size suggest it draws significantly less power. For basic display output or light 2D desktop work, the R7 M260 is functionally adequate, but its 14.40 GB/s memory bandwidth and 7.840 GPixel/s pixel rate are severe bottlenecks for any modern 3D application.

In terms of ecosystem features, the Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M3000M’s higher DirectX feature level (12_1) and newer Vulkan version provide better forward-compatibility with newer software titles. The R7 M260’s older Vulkan support may limit its ability to run the latest games or applications that rely on newer API features.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the far more powerful GPU. It is the only choice for users who need serious compute performance in a mobile workstation. The 348.9% lead in OpenCL and 215.1% lead in Vulkan are not just statistical wins; they represent a fundamental difference in capability. The Quadro M3000M is designed for professional workloads, and its benchmark scores reflect that.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 is not competitive in any compute scenario. Its 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus is a major limitation, especially when compared to the Quadro M3000M’s 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The R7 M260’s 26th percentile ranking among all GPUs is slightly below the Quadro M3000M’s 27th percentile, but this is misleading because the percentile is based on the average score, which is skewed by the Quadro M3000M’s many DirectX results. In the only tests where they are directly compared, the NVIDIA part is overwhelmingly superior.

For a user who prioritizes compute performance, the choice is clear: the Quadro M3000M. For a user who only needs basic graphics acceleration for office work or media playback, the R7 M260 might suffice, but it offers no performance advantage. The Quadro M3000M is the definitive pick from this data set.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 points, which is 348.9% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s score of 3,708 points.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R7 M260 perform in Vulkan compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M?

A: The R7 M260 scores 5,289 points in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro M3000M scores 16,668 points. The NVIDIA GPU leads by 215.1%.

Q: What are the memory specifications of these two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 (single-precision) compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has an FP32 rating of 1.892 TFLOPS, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s 752.6 GFLOPS.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the AMD Radeon R7 M260 wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks provided, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins both tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), giving it a 2-0 win record.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M’s GM204 chip has a density of 13.1M / mm², while the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s Topaz chip has a density of 12.4M / mm².

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures and have vastly different silicon budgets. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC and packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip based on GCN 3.0. It is also on a 28 nm process at TSMC but contains only 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This disparity in execution resources directly explains the massive performance gap in the compute benchmarks. The Quadro M3000M also has higher clock speeds, with a base clock of 823 MHz and a boost clock of 924 MHz, compared to the R7 M260’s base of 940 MHz and boost of 980 MHz. While the AMD chip has a higher clock speed, its much smaller number of cores cannot compensate for the NVIDIA part’s raw hardware advantage.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The Quadro M3000M uses GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus, achieving 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260 uses DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. This 11x difference in memory bandwidth is critical for memory-intensive tasks. The Quadro M3000M also supports a wider PCIe interface (PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x8), which allows for faster data transfer to and from the host system.

The feature sets also differ. The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M3000M also has a higher pixel rate (29.57 GPixel/s vs 7.840 GPixel/s) and texture rate (59.14 GTexel/s vs 23.52 GTexel/s). The NVIDIA part is a professional mobile workstation GPU, indicated by its "MXM Module" slot width and no power connectors, while the R7 M260 is a lower-end consumer part. The TDP of the Quadro M3000M is 75 W, while the R7 M260’s TDP is not provided.