AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs AMD Radeon R7 M440 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile graphics parts almost perfectly down the middle, with each claiming one decisive victory in the two available tests. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X takes the Geekbench OpenCL compute workload, scoring 5690 against the M440’s 5214, a margin of 8.4%. This indicates that in raw general-purpose compute tasks—the kind of workloads that stress parallel floating-point execution—the older GCN 1.0 design holds a clear advantage. The M260X’s win here is not marginal; it is a substantial lead that would translate into faster performance in OpenCL-accelerated applications such as video encoding filters, image processing, or scientific calculations.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon R7 M440 dominates the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 5751 compared to the M260X’s 4631. This is a massive 24.2% swing in favor of the newer part. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that benefits from architectural efficiency and driver optimization, and the data shows the M440 is dramatically stronger in this specific workload. For any application or game leveraging Vulkan, the M440 would provide noticeably smoother frame pacing and higher throughput. This split suggests that the choice between these two GPUs depends heavily on the software environment: OpenCL-heavy workloads favor the M260X, while Vulkan-based content strongly favors the M440.

Looking at overall averages, the M440 edges ahead with an average benchmark score of 5483 across both tests, while the M260X trails at 5161. This places the M440 in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, two percentile points higher than the M260X’s 30th percentile. The nearest rival comparisons reinforce this positioning: the M440 sits within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508) and just 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467), while the M260X is 1.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236) and essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154). In practical terms, the M440 is the more competitive part against modern entry-level discrete GPUs, whereas the M260X clusters with older professional mobile solutions.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture, and this is the single most important factor explaining their divergent benchmark behavior. The M440 is built on GCN 3.0 using the Meso chip, while the M260X uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture on the Opal chip. Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor budgets differ significantly: the M440 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, whereas the M260X contains only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This gives the M440 a transistor density of 12.4M per mm², just barely higher than the M260X’s 12.3M per mm², indicating that the newer chip uses its additional silicon area for architectural enhancements rather than denser packing.

The compute unit configuration also diverges. The M260X actually has more shading units (384 versus 320) and more texture mapping units (24 versus 20), but both have the same 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer execution units, the M440 achieves a slightly higher FP32 throughput of 570.2 GFLOPS compared to the M260X’s 549.1 GFLOPS. This is a remarkable result—the newer architecture extracts more floating-point performance from fewer cores, likely due to better instruction scheduling and higher clock efficiency. The M440 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the M260X lists no FP16 capability at all, making the newer part more flexible for mixed-precision workloads. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the M440 reaches 7.128 GPixel/s and 17.82 GTexel/s, while the M260X manages 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s. The M440’s higher pixel rate is particularly notable given its smaller ROP count is equal—the advantage comes purely from architecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the M260X’s strongest showing. Its score of 5690 beats the M440’s 5214 by 8.4%, a gap that places the M260X in a higher performance tier for compute. To contextualize this, the M260X’s OpenCL score is actually higher than its average across all tests (5161), suggesting OpenCL is a particularly favorable workload for this GPU. The M440, by contrast, scores below its own average (5483) in OpenCL, underscoring that this is a relative weakness for the newer part. This 476-point absolute difference is substantial and would be noticeable in any OpenCL-bound application.

The Vulkan test flips the script entirely. Here the M440 scores 5751 against the M260X’s 4631, a 24.2% advantage that is nearly three times larger than the M260X’s OpenCL lead. The absolute gap of 1120 points is more than double the OpenCL difference in the opposite direction. This result is striking because the M440’s Vulkan score is well above its average, while the M260X’s Vulkan score is well below its own average. The M260X loses 1059 points going from OpenCL to Vulkan, whereas the M440 gains 537 points in the same transition. This stark contrast points to fundamental differences in how the two architectures handle modern graphics APIs—the GCN 3.0 design in the M440 clearly has superior Vulkan driver support and hardware scheduling, while the GCN 1.0 part in the M260X struggles in this environment. For end users, this means the M440 is the safer choice for current-generation game titles that increasingly rely on Vulkan, while the M260X remains viable only for legacy OpenCL compute tasks.

Specification Differences

Several key specifications separate these two mobile GPUs, and each difference helps explain their benchmark profiles. The memory subsystems are entirely different: the M440 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, while the M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The M260X’s bandwidth advantage is enormous—over 4.4 times higher—yet this does not translate into overall performance supremacy, indicating that the M440’s architecture compensates for its memory deficit through other efficiencies. The M440’s memory clock is listed at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the M260X runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The M260X also has explicit base and boost clocks of 620 MHz and 715 MHz, respectively, while the M440’s clocks are not specified in the data.

Other differences include the M440’s slot width listed as "IGP" (integrated graphics processor), whereas the M260X has no slot width specified but lists power connectors as "None." Both use PCIe 3.0 x8 and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The API support differs subtly: the M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M260X only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1), a feature-level gap that could affect compatibility with advanced DX12 effects. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M440 lists 1,550 million transistors versus 950 million for the M260X, and the die sizes are 125 mm² versus 77 mm², respectively. The M440’s release date is May 2016, while the M260X launched in December 2015, making the M440 roughly five months newer. Both are end-of-life products with the same predecessor (Solar System) and successor (Polaris Mobile), and neither has a launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 has a higher average benchmark score of 5483, compared to the M260X’s 5161. This places the M440 in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the M260X sits in the 30th percentile.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The M440 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 5751 points against the M260X’s 4631, a 24.2% advantage. This is the single largest performance difference recorded in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Does the M260X win any benchmark test?

A: Yes, the M260X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5690, beating the M440’s 5214 by 8.4%. This is its only benchmark victory, but it is a decisive one.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two GPUs?

A: The M440 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M260X offers over four times the memory bandwidth.

Q: How do their compute unit counts compare?

A: The M260X has more shading units (384 versus 320) and more texture mapping units (24 versus 20), yet the M440 still achieves higher FP32 performance at 570.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS. Both have 8 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M260X is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the M440 can handle more advanced DirectX 12 features in compatible software.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. For users whose primary workload is OpenCL-based compute—such as certain professional applications, video processing tools, or scientific software—the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the stronger choice. Its 8.4% OpenCL advantage over the M440 is backed by nearly 4.5 times the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) and more shading units (384 versus 320). This makes the M260X the better option for anyone who knows their software stack relies on OpenCL acceleration and does not use Vulkan.

For gaming and modern graphics workloads, the AMD Radeon R7 M440 is unequivocally superior. Its 24.2% Vulkan lead is the largest performance differential in the entire comparison, and its higher average benchmark score (5483 versus 5161) confirms it is the better-rounded part. The M440’s architectural advantages—GCN 3.0 versus GCN 1.0, higher FP32 throughput despite fewer cores, and superior DirectX 12 feature level—make it the forward-looking choice. Users running Vulkan-based games or applications will see dramatically better performance on the M440.

The overall percentile rankings support this conclusion: the M440 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, two points above the M260X, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and Quadro M4000, both within 0.5% of its average score. The M260X, by contrast, clusters with the older NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and GeForce GTX 760M. The data suggests that the M440 is the better all-around mobile GPU, with the M260X reserved for specific OpenCL-centric use cases where its bandwidth and compute unit advantage can be fully exploited. Given that both parts have reached end-of-life status, the choice between them should be driven entirely by the intended software environment—Vulkan favors the M440, OpenCL favors the M260X.