AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs AMD Radeon R7 M340 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X and AMD Radeon R7 M340 are both end-of-life mobile GPUs from AMD’s Gem System generation, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process. The data shows a split decision: the M260X wins the OpenCL benchmark by a significant margin, while the M340 takes the Vulkan benchmark. Their overall benchmark averages are close, placing both at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, indicating entry-level performance. The choice between them depends on whether you prioritize raw compute throughput or newer API efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has a higher average benchmark score of 5161, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M340’s 5063. This is a difference of roughly 2%, placing both in the same performance tier.

Q: How do they compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The M260X wins Geekbench OpenCL decisively with a score of 5690 versus the M340’s 4932, a 15.4% advantage. This indicates the M260X has a clear edge in general-purpose compute workloads.

Q: What about the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The M340 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 5193 against the M260X’s 4631, a 10.8% lead. This suggests the M340 is better optimized for modern graphics APIs.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has 384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R7 M340 has 320. The M260X also has 24 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus 20 on the M340, and both have 8 raster operation units (ROPs).

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The M260X features 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M340 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How does their architectural generation differ?

A: The M260X is based on GCN 1.0 architecture (chip “Opal”), while the M340 uses GCN 3.0 architecture (chip “Meso”). The M340 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the M260X is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1).

The Verdict

Based strictly on benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the better choice for users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads. Its 15.4% win in that test is substantial, and its higher average benchmark score (5161 vs 5063) confirms its overall edge. However, the M340 counters with a 10.8% victory in Vulkan, which is more relevant for modern gaming and graphics applications. The M340 also offers double the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1024 MB), though with significantly lower bandwidth (16.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s). For legacy compute tasks, pick the M260X; for newer API-based workloads and larger memory buffers, the M340 is the safer bet.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head results exactly, with one win each. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X delivers a score of 5690 against the M340’s 4932, marking a 15.4% advantage. This is the largest margin in either direction and reflects the M260X’s superior raw throughput, driven by its higher shading unit count (384 vs 320) and faster GDDR5 memory. Conversely, in Geekbench Vulkan, the M340 turns the tables with a score of 5193 versus 4631 for the M260X, a 10.8% lead. This Vulkan result is notable because it shows the M340’s newer GCN 3.0 architecture and full DirectX 12 (12_0) support translating into better performance on modern APIs, despite its weaker memory subsystem. The net effect is a tie in wins, but the M260X’s larger OpenCL margin suggests it has a higher peak performance ceiling, while the M340’s Vulkan win points to better efficiency in contemporary graphics workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in core configuration and memory architecture. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the AMD Radeon R7 M340 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Clock speeds also favor the M340: it runs at a base of 943 MHz and boost of 1021 MHz, compared to the M260X’s 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. Memory is a stark contrast: the M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the M340 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, achieving only 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M260X’s memory clock is listed as 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the M340’s is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), confirming the bandwidth gap. Neither GPU has a listed TDP or launch MSRP, and both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The M260X has no power connectors listed, while the M340’s power connector field is null.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these are two different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the "Opal" chip, while the AMD Radeon R7 M340 uses GCN 3.0 with the "Meso" chip. This generational leap is reflected in their transistor counts: the M340 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, versus 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die for the M260X. Transistor density is nearly identical (12.4M / mm² vs 12.3M / mm²), meaning the M340’s larger die is used for more complex logic. The M340 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M260X is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), indicating the M340 has full feature-level support for modern DX12 titles. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M340 also lists FP16 performance at 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1), while the M260X has no FP16 data. The M260X’s FP32 output is 549.1 GFLOPS, whereas the M340 achieves 653.4 GFLOPS, a 19% raw compute advantage for the M340 despite having fewer cores, thanks to its higher clocks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins in scenarios that demand raw memory bandwidth and compute throughput. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is four times that of the M340, making it far superior for bandwidth-sensitive tasks like texture-heavy workloads or OpenCL compute. The M260X’s 15.4% OpenCL win over the M340 confirms this strength. It also has a higher pixel rate? No — the data shows the M340 has a higher pixel rate (8.168 GPixel/s vs 5.720 GPixel/s) and texture rate (20.42 GTexel/s vs 17.16 GTexel/s). So the M260X’s wins are specifically in compute and memory bandwidth, not in fill rates.

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 wins in modern API performance and capacity. Its 10.8% Vulkan victory over the M260X demonstrates better optimization for current graphics interfaces, likely due to its GCN 3.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_0) support. The M340’s higher base and boost clocks (943/1021 MHz vs 620/715 MHz) also give it a raw speed advantage in clock-bound tasks. With 2 GB of memory, it can handle larger textures and buffers than the M260X’s 1024 MB, making it more suitable for modern game assets. Its higher FP32 output (653.4 GFLOPS vs 549.1 GFLOPS) further supports its edge in shader-heavy workloads.

In practical terms, the M260X is the pick for older DirectX 11-era games or compute applications that leverage OpenCL, where its memory bandwidth is a decisive factor. The M340 is the pick for newer titles and Vulkan-based engines, where its architectural advantages and higher clocks outweigh the memory bandwidth deficit. Both sit at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, so neither is a high-performance part, but they serve different niches within the entry-level mobile segment.