AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs AMD Radeon R7 M465 Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along generational lines. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 takes the only direct head-to-head victory, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test by 2.7% over the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. That single win is significant because it represents the newer architecture's ability to extract more compute throughput from the same fundamental GPU configuration.

The M465's advantage is concentrated in raw compute workloads. Its OpenCL score of 5841 versus the M260X's 5690 shows a measurable lead in general-purpose GPU compute, which translates to better performance in OpenCL-accelerated applications, video encoding tasks using GPU acceleration, and compute-heavy filters in creative software.

The M260X, despite losing the head-to-head comparison, demonstrates its own strengths in the database's recorded metrics. It carries a Vulkan benchmark score of 4631, a test that the M465 has no recorded result for. This means the M260X offers verified Vulkan API performance, while the M465's Vulkan capabilities remain unmeasured in the database. For users targeting Vulkan-based games or applications, the M260X has documented evidence of its capability, whereas the M465 does not.

The M465's higher boost clock of 1024 MHz against the M260X's 715 MHz gives it a substantial frequency advantage that shows up in both pixel throughput and texture processing. The M465 produces 8.192 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the M260X, a 43% advantage in pixel fill rate. Similarly, texture rate favors the M465 at 24.58 GTexel/s against 17.16 GTexel/s for the M260X, a 43% lead.

However, the M260X fights back with memory bandwidth. Its 128-bit memory bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth more than double the M465's 36.00 GB/s from a 64-bit bus. This bandwidth advantage matters in texture-heavy scenes and higher-resolution workloads where the GPU must stream large amounts of data from VRAM. The M260X's memory configuration is the strongest counterargument to the M465's compute lead.

In terms of overall positioning, the M465 sits at the 33rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the M260X rests at the 30th percentile. The M465's average benchmark score of 5841 places it slightly ahead of its closest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M435, by 0.3% in the other direction. The M260X's average score of 5161 drops because its Vulkan result is included in the averaging, pulling the OpenCL score down.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations within AMD's Graphics Core Next family. The M465 uses the Topaz chip built on GCN 3.0, while the M260X uses the Opal chip based on GCN 1.0. This generational gap explains most of the performance differences between the two parts.

Both are manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The M465 packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The M260X contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The M465 thus carries roughly 63% more transistors on a die that is 62% larger.

The compute unit configuration remains identical. Both GPUs feature 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. This means the architectural differences come down to clock speeds, memory subsystem design, and feature support rather than raw compute unit counts.

Clock behavior shows the M465's more aggressive design. Its base clock runs at 730 MHz against 620 MHz for the M260X. The boost behavior is even more divergent: the M465 boosts to 1024 MHz, while the M260X only reaches 715 MHz. The M465's boost clock is 43% higher than the M260X's, which directly drives its lead in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput.

The FP32 compute figures reflect this clock advantage. The M465 delivers 786.4 GFLOPS of single-precision performance, while the M260X manages 549.1 GFLOPS. The M465 also records an FP16 performance of 786.4 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the M260X has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory configurations differ fundamentally. The M465 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, running at 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective data rate. The M260X uses 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate. The M260X's wider bus delivers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the M465's narrower bus delivers 36.00 GB/s. The M465 compensates with double the memory capacity.

Feature support also differs. The M465 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, while the M260X supports DirectX 12 at the lower feature level 11_1. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M465's higher feature level means it can handle more advanced DirectX 12 rendering techniques.

The power connector situation differs as well. The M260X lists "None" for power connectors, indicating it draws power entirely from its slot. The M465 does not record power connector information. Both are mobile-oriented parts, with the M260X's display outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between the two GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M465 scores 5841 against the M260X's 5690, giving the M465 a 2.7% victory. This margin is modest but consistent with the M465's higher clocks and newer architecture.

The M465's OpenCL score places it in interesting company among its nearest rivals. At 5841, it trails the Intel UHD Graphics 730 by 1.5% and the AMD Radeon Radeon HD 550 Ti by 1.9% in the other direction. The M465's score exceeds the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 1.9%, showing that this mobile part can outperform a desktop GPU from NVIDIA's older desktop lineup in OpenCL workloads.

The M260X's OpenCL score of 5690 also holds up well against its own rival set. It beats the AMD Radeon R7 240 by 1.9% and trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M by 1.4% among its nearest competitors. The M260X's score falls within 1% of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, demonstrating performance parity with professional mobile GPUs in OpenCL.

Vulkan results for the M260X show a score of 4631, which drops its average benchmark score down to 5161 when averaged with the OpenCL score. This Vulkan score suggests relatively modest Vulkan compute performance, though no direct comparison exists between the two AMD parts in this API.

The M465's average benchmark score of 5841 exactly matches its OpenCL result since that is its only recorded benchmark. This makes direct comparison of average scores between the two GPUs straightforward on paper, but the 2.7% OpenCL delta is the only true head-to-head data point.

The pixel throughput gap deserves emphasis. At 8.192 GPixel/s, the M465 outperforms the M260X's 5.720 GPixel/s by 43% in raw fill rate capability. This means resolution-heavy workloads like 3D rendering output at native resolution will favor the M465. The M260X's texture rate of 17.16 GTexel/s versus the M465's 24.58 GTexel/s similarly shows a 43% advantage for the newer part.

Bandwidth remains the M260X's only clear victory condition in raw specifications. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth at 128-bit bus width and 1 GB GDDR5 capacity at 4 Gbps effective speed exceeds the M465's narrower config. For texture streaming and multi-sample anti-aliasing workloads, the M260X's memory advantage ranges ahead.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690. The M465 leads by 2.7%.

Q: Does the M260X support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the M260X has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4631. The M465 has no recorded Vulkan benchmark in the database.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The M260X offers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its 128-bit GDDR5 memory bus, while the M465 offers 36.00 GB/s from a 64-bit bus. The M260X has nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more VRAM?

A: The M465 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the M260X's 1 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What DirectX versions do they support?

A: The M465 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, while the M260X supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_1.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life products. The M465 was released on May 14, 2016, and the M260X was released on December 5, 2015.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon M465 | AMD Radeon R7 M260X |

|---|---|---|

| Chip Name | Topaz | Opal |

| Architecture GCN 1.0 | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistor Count | 1,550 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M/mm² | 12.3M/mm² |

| Base Clock | 730 MHz | 620 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1024 MHz | 715 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 4.5 Gbps effective | 4 Gbps |

| Memory Size | 2 GB GDDR5 | 1024 MB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 64 GB/s Bandwidth | 64 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 128-bit bus | 128-bit |

| TMUs | 24 TMUs | 24 TMUs |

| ROPs | 8 ROPs | 8 ROPs |

| Pixel | Rate 8.192 GPixel/s | 5.720 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.58 GTexel/s | 17.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | | 786.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 786.16 GFLOPS (1:1) | |