AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs AMD Radeon R7 M445 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the faster GPU in this pairing. In the only head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the M260X scores 5690 against the M445's 5358, a 5.8% lead for the M260X. That is a meaningful gap for two mobile parts that otherwise sit in the same performance tier. If you are choosing between these two for a laptop, the M260X is the pick. The M445 is not without merit — it is smaller, denser, and based on a newer architecture — but benchmark results indicate the M260X simply does more work.

The M445 does have one thing going for it: a higher percentile ranking. It sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the M260X sits at the 30th. That is a marginal difference, almost noise, but it suggests that in the broader GPU landscape, the M445 is slightly less outclassed. However, in a direct comparison, the M260X wins the only test that matters. The verdict is not close. Pick the M260X for raw performance; pick the M445 only if the newer architecture and smaller die appeal to you for reasons beyond frame rates.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358. That is a 5.8% advantage for the M260X.

Q: Does the M445 have any architectural advantages?

A: Yes. The M445 uses GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The M260X uses older GCN 1.0 with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The M445 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M260X only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The M445 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M260X has 1 GB (1024 MB) of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s — twice the bandwidth despite half the capacity.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The M445 runs at 780 MHz base and 920 MHz boost. The M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. The M445's clocks are substantially higher.

Q: Why does the M260X win despite lower clocks and fewer transistors?

A: The M260X has more execution hardware: 384 shading units and 24 TMUs versus 320 shading units and 20 TMUs on the M445. It also has double the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 32.00 GB/s), which likely compensates for its lower clock speeds in real workloads.

Q: Are these GPUs still relevant for modern use?

A: Both are end-of-life products, released in 2015 (M260X) and 2016 (M445). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, but the M260X is capped at DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level, while the M445 supports full DirectX 12 (12_0).

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two is significant and goes beyond clock speeds. The M445 is built on GCN 3.0, a later iteration of AMD's Graphics Core Next design, while the M260X uses the original GCN 1.0. That is a full generation of architectural evolution separating them. The M445's chip is codenamed Meso; the M260X uses Opal. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the node is identical — the differences come from the design itself.

The M445 packs 1,550 million transistors onto a 125 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The M260X is smaller: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3M per mm². The density numbers are nearly identical, which makes sense for the same node. The M445 simply has more silicon to work with, but it uses that silicon differently — more transistors but fewer shading units than the M260X.

The most important architectural difference is DirectX support. The M445 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), the full feature level. The M260X only supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a lower feature level. That means games that require DirectX 12_0 features will run on the M445 but may not on the M260X. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, so modern APIs are covered on both.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. These are rasterization-only parts. They are both integrated into portable devices, with the M445 specifically listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width of "IGP". The M260X lists no slot width but has no power connectors, indicating it is also a low-power mobile part.

Specification Differences

The spec sheets show clear trade-offs. The M445 has higher clocks: 780 MHz base and 920 MHz boost versus 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost on the M260X. That is a significant clock advantage for the M445 — roughly 26% higher base and 29% higher boost. But the M260X counters with more hardware. It has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The M445 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The ROP count is identical, but the M260X has 20% more shading units and 20% more TMUs.

Memory is another split. The M445 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M260X has only 1 GB of GDDR5 but on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. The M260X has double the memory bandwidth but a quarter of the capacity. Both run their memory at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, so the bandwidth difference is purely a bus-width issue.

The M445 has a higher pixel rate at 7.360 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s on the M260X. Its texture rate is also higher: 18.40 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. However, the M260X has higher FP32 performance at 549.1 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS on the M445 — wait, that is backwards. The M445 actually has the higher FP32 at 588.8 GFLOPS, and the M260X is at 549.1 GFLOPS. The M445 also lists FP16 at 588.8 GFLOPS (1:1), while the M260X has no FP16 listed.

The bus interface is the same for both: PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for both, meaning they are soldered into laptops and rely on the laptop's own display connections. Both are end-of-life, with the M260X released on 2015-12-05 and the M445 on 2016-05-14. Both list their predecessor as "Solar System" and successor as "Polaris Mobile".

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is only one head-to-head benchmark in the data, and it tells a clear story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690, and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358. The M260X wins by 5.8%. That is not a small margin in integrated and low-power mobile GPUs, where a few percent often separates tiers.

The M445 does have a higher average benchmark score of 5358 versus 5161 for the M260X, but that average is misleading. The M260X has two benchmark entries — Geekbench OpenCL at 5690 and Geekbench Vulkan at 4631 — which pulls its average down. The M445 has only the single OpenCL score. In the direct comparison, the M260X is clearly ahead.

Looking at nearest rivals puts both in context. The M445's closest competitor is the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5370, which beats it by just 0.2%. The M445 also trails the NVIDIA GeForce 840M by 0.7% and the GeForce 930A by 0.8%. Interestingly, the M445 is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 980M in this dataset — a strange result that likely reflects the specific OpenCL workload rather than real-world gaming performance. The M260X's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5154 (0.1% behind) and the Quadro 4000M at 5211 (1% ahead). The M260X is 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240.

In terms of percentile ranking, the M445 sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, and the M260X at the 30th. Both are low-end parts by modern standards, but the M260X's raw OpenCL score is the better one.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5690 beats the M445's 5358 by 5.8%, and it has double the memory bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s. This makes it the better choice for bandwidth-sensitive workloads — anything that streams large textures or computes on large data sets will benefit from the wider 128-bit bus. The M260X also has more shading units (384 versus 320) and more TMUs (24 versus 20), giving it more parallel execution resources. For gaming at lower resolutions and settings, the M260X is the pick.

The AMD Radeon R7 M445 wins in several technical categories. It has a newer architecture (GCN 3.0 versus GCN 1.0) and full DirectX 12 (12_0) support, while the M260X is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). It has higher clock speeds — 920 MHz boost versus 715 MHz — and higher pixel and texture rates (7.360 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s). It also has more memory capacity at 4 GB versus 1 GB, which matters for modern games that exceed 1 GB of VRAM. The M445's FP32 throughput is also higher at 588.8 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS.

The M445 also wins on transistor density and die efficiency, with 12.4M transistors per mm² versus 12.3M on the M260X — a negligible difference, but the M445 does more with a larger die. Its pixel rate advantage of 29% and texture rate advantage of 7% suggest it handles fill-rate-limited scenes better. The M445's 4 GB frame buffer is a major practical advantage for modern titles that want more than 1 GB of VRAM, even if the M260X's bandwidth is superior.

For use-case planning: choose the M260X for compute-heavy tasks and games that favor bandwidth and raw shading power. Choose the M445 for games that need more VRAM capacity, or for any application that requires DirectX 12_0 features. Neither is a high-end part, but they serve different niches within the low-end mobile segment. The M260X is the faster GPU overall; the M445 is the more future-proof one in terms of API support and memory capacity.