AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs AMD Radeon R7 M365X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X and AMD Radeon R7 M260X are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture, but the data reveals a clear performance hierarchy. The M365X wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, yet the margins are slim enough to warrant a closer look at where each part might still make sense. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural choices, and specification differences to determine which GPU holds an edge in specific scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R7 M365X wins both recorded tests, claiming 2 wins against 0 for the M260X. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M365X scores 5939 against the M260X’s 5690, a 4.4% advantage. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the M365X scores 4893 versus 4631, stretching its lead to 5.7%. There is no test in the data where the M260X comes out ahead.

That said, the M260X is not without a niche. Its average benchmark score of 5161 places it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, which is just two points behind the M365X’s 32nd percentile ranking. The M260X’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, has an average score of 5154, meaning the M260X sits in a tightly packed field where a 1-2% swing can reorder the leaderboard. For workloads that are not heavily dependent on raw compute throughput, the M260X could be functionally equivalent in practice, especially since both cards share the same memory configuration and API support. However, for any benchmark that stresses compute or graphics pipelines, the M365X is the consistent winner.

The M365X also benefits from a higher percentile rank (32 vs 30), indicating that it outperforms a slightly larger share of the overall GPU population. Its average benchmark score of 5416 is 4.9% higher than the M260X’s 5161. The M365X’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 610M, scores 5444, which is only 0.5% higher, showing that the M365X is competitive even against newer integrated graphics. The M260X, by contrast, lags behind the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M by 1% and trails the GeForce GTX 760M by 1.4%, suggesting it is positioned at the lower end of its performance class.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using a 28 nm process at TSMC, with identical transistor counts of 950 million and a die size of 77 mm². The transistor density works out to 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter for both parts. The core configuration is also identical: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. Neither GPU features ray tracing or tensor cores.

The chip names differ, with the M365X using “Litho” and the M260X using “Opal,” but this does not translate into a different architecture generation. Both belong to the “Gem System” family, though the M365X is part of the R7 M300 generation while the M260X is part of the R7 M200 generation. The production status for both is end-of-life, and both share the same predecessor (“Solar System”) and successor (“Polaris Mobile”).

The key architectural difference lies in clock speeds. The M260X explicitly lists a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost clock of 715 MHz. The M365X does not list base or boost clocks in the data, but its higher pixel rate and texture rate imply that its clock speeds are set higher. The M365X achieves a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s, while the M260X manages 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s respectively. This translates to a 15.4% higher pixel throughput and a 15.4% higher texture throughput for the M365X, directly reflecting a clock speed advantage.

Both cards feature identical memory: 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The API support is also identical, with DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for both, and neither card lists a TDP or power supply recommendation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the M365X scoring 5939 against the M260X’s 5690, a delta of 4.4%. This is a moderate win that likely reflects the M365X’s higher shading unit clock speeds, as both cards have the same 384 shading units. The M365X’s FP32 throughput of 633.6 GFLOPS versus the M260X’s 549.1 GFLOPS represents a 15.4% advantage in raw compute, but the OpenCL score gap is only 4.4%, suggesting that the benchmark is not purely compute-bound or that memory bandwidth (identical on both) plays a limiting role.

The Geekbench Vulkan test widens the gap slightly to 5.7%, with the M365X scoring 4893 and the M260X scoring 4631. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose hardware differences more directly, but the delta is still modest. The M365X’s higher texture rate (19.80 GTexel/s vs 17.16 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (6.600 GPixel/s vs 5.720 GPixel/s) may contribute to this particular workload, as Vulkan benchmarks often include geometry and fill-rate-heavy scenes.

It is importantly the M365X’s average benchmark score of 5416 is not dramatically higher than the M260X’s 5161. The M365X sits 0.5% below the AMD Radeon 610M and 0.9% above the Intel UHD Graphics P630, indicating it is a mid-pack performer. The M260X, with its 30th percentile rank, is just 1.9% above the AMD Radeon R7 240, showing that it is closer to entry-level territory. The head-to-head results confirm that the M365X is the stronger part, but the small deltas suggest that real-world differences would be noticeable only in sustained or heavy workloads.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs, with all other specifications being identical:

• Chip: Litho (M365X) vs Opal (M260X)
• Generation: Gem System (R7 M300) vs Gem System (R7 M200)
• Base Clock: Not listed (M365X) vs 620 MHz (M260X)
• Boost Clock: Not listed (M365X) vs 715 MHz (M260X)
• Pixel Rate: 6.600 GPixel/s (M365X) vs 5.720 GPixel/s (M260X)
• Texture Rate: 19.80 GTexel/s (M365X) vs 17.16 GTexel/s (M260X)
• FP32: 633.6 GFLOPS (M365X) vs 549.1 GFLOPS (M260X)
• Power Connectors: Not listed (M365X) vs None (M260X)
• Display Outputs: Not listed (M365X) vs Portable Device Dependent (M260X)
• Release Date: 2015-05-04 (M365X) vs 2015-12-05 (M260X)
• Benchmarks (OpenCL): 5939 (M365X) vs 5690 (M260X)
• Benchmarks (Vulkan): 4893 (M365X) vs 4631 (M260X)
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 32 (M365X) vs 30 (M260X)
• Average Benchmark Score: 5416 (M365X) vs 5161 (M260X)

The M365X was released about seven months earlier than the M260X, which is notable given that it is the faster part. The M260X explicitly lists no power connectors, while the M365X leaves this field blank, but neither card lists a TDP. The M260X’s display outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the M365X does not specify any, implying both are designed for mobile systems where the display path is determined by the laptop manufacturer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X has an average benchmark score of 5416, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5161, giving the M365X a 4.9% advantage.

Q: Are the core counts identical between the two cards?

A: Yes, both the M365X and M260X feature 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for both GPUs?

A: Both cards have identical memory specifications: 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The M365X scores 4893, which is 5.7% higher than the M260X’s score of 4631.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The M365X achieves 6.600 GPixel/s, while the M260X reaches 5.720 GPixel/s, a 15.4% difference in favor of the M365X.

Q: Do both cards support the same API versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon R7 M365X. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (5416 vs 5161), and sits at a higher percentile rank (32 vs 30). Its pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput are all approximately 15.4% higher than the M260X, which is a substantial architectural advantage despite identical core counts and memory configuration. For anyone choosing between these two for a laptop or upgrade path, the M365X is the better performer in every measurable category.

The M260X, however, is not a poor part in absolute terms. Its average score of 5161 places it just 0.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and only 1.9% above the AMD Radeon R7 240, meaning it holds its own against contemporary mobile workstation GPUs. If the M365X is unavailable or the system design cannot accommodate its higher clock speeds (which may imply higher power draw, though no TDP is listed), the M260X remains a serviceable option for lighter workloads. Its release date of December 2015 also makes it a newer product than the M365X, though the performance data does not reflect any benefit from that later launch.

Ultimately, the M365X is the pick for users who want the best compute and graphics throughput from this pair, particularly in Vulkan-based applications where its 5.7% lead is most pronounced. The M260X is the fallback for systems that prioritize compatibility or where the lower clock speeds (620 MHz base, 715 MHz boost) might align better with thermal constraints. The benchmark results are consistent and leave no doubt: the M365X is the superior mobile GPU.