AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs AMD Radeon RX 560 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the AMD Radeon R7 M260X and the AMD Radeon RX 560 is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is not close. The RX 560 scores 16,472 points against the R7 M260X's 5,690 points, a delta of 65.5% in favor of the newer card. This is a massive gap, and it reflects the fundamental generational leap between these two mobile and desktop parts.

In the database's aggregate scoring, the R7 M260X posts an average benchmark score of 5,161, placing it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 560, despite having a much higher OpenCL score, sits at a 26th percentile with an average score of 4,569. This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that the RX 560's average includes several Passmark tests where it scores very low in specific legacy APIs, such as a 16 in DirectX 10 and a 21 in DirectX 12, which drag down its overall average relative to the R7 M260X, which only has two OpenCL/Vulkan results recorded.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database helps contextualize the R7 M260X's position. Its average score of 5,161 sits within 1.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5,236) and within 1% of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5,211). It is also 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5,063) and a mere 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5,154). This clustering shows that the R7 M260X is a mid-pack mobile GPU from its era, competing directly with upper-midrange notebook parts from 2013-2015.

The RX 560's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average of 4,569 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4,577, a 0.2% deficit) and the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4,560, a 0.2% advantage). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4,621) by 1.1% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4,628) by 1.3%. The presence of an integrated Intel GPU and a low-end R5 part among its nearest rivals, despite the RX 560's far superior OpenCL result, suggests that the Passmark legacy tests are heavily penalizing the card in the aggregate. The RX 560's raw compute capability, as shown in the OpenCL test, is clearly in a different class.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M260X wins in the aggregate average score, but that is a statistical artifact of the limited test set rather than a genuine performance advantage. Its two recorded benchmarks are both modern compute API tests: Geekbench OpenCL at 5,690 and Geekbench Vulkan at 4,631. These results position it as a capable compute-oriented mobile part, but with only 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, its raw throughput is strictly limited.

The RX 560 wins the only head-to-head benchmark decisively. Its 16,472 OpenCL score is 2.9 times higher than the R7 M260X's 5,690. Beyond that single test, the RX 560 has a much broader benchmark portfolio in the database, including Passmark DirectX 9 (57), DirectX 10 (16), DirectX 11 (25), DirectX 12 (21), G2D (485), G3D (3,671), and GPU compute (1,437). These results paint a picture of a card that, while not excelling in legacy fixed-function DirectX tests, delivers strong general-purpose 3D performance (G3D) and compute workloads.

For real-world use cases, the RX 560 is the clear winner for any modern workload. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, compared to the R7 M260X's 1 GB, allows it to handle larger textures and higher resolutions without running out of frame buffer. The R7 M260X, being a mobile part with a 128-bit memory bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, was designed for laptops and compact systems where power and thermal constraints are paramount. The RX 560, with a 128-bit bus and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, is a desktop card that can sustain higher memory throughput.

The RX 560 also wins on API support. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the R7 M260X only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. For gamers and compute users targeting the latest APIs, this is a decisive advantage. The R7 M260X's only clear "win" is in its portability profile: it has no power connectors and is described as "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the RX 560 is a dual-slot desktop card.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras of AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture. The R7 M260X is built on GCN 1.0, using the Opal chip, and belongs to the "Gem System (R7 M200)" generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 950 million transistors packed into a 77 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The RX 560, in contrast, uses GCN 4.0 with the Polaris 21 chip, from the "Polaris (RX 500)" generation. It is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a density of 24.4 million per mm². The node shrink more than doubles transistor density while also enabling higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds reflect this architectural maturity. The R7 M260X runs at a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost clock of 715 MHz. The RX 560 runs at a base of 1175 MHz and a boost of 1275 MHz. That is nearly double the clock frequency, which, combined with the higher transistor count, explains the massive compute advantage. The R7 M260X delivers 549.1 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the RX 560 delivers 2.611 TFLOPS. The RX 560 also has FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio (2.611 TFLOPS), while the R7 M260X has no recorded FP16 capability.

The compute unit counts scale accordingly. The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The RX 560 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate jumps from 5.720 GPixel/s to 20.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 17.16 GTexel/s to 81.60 GTexel/s. These are not incremental improvements; they represent a full generational leap in throughput.

Memory configurations also differ sharply. The R7 M260X ships with 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at an effective 4 Gbps, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 560 ships with 4 GB of GDDR5, also on a 128-bit bus, but at an effective 7 Gbps, yielding 112.0 GB/s. The RX 560's memory clock is 1750 MHz compared to the R7 M260X's 1000 MHz, and that higher frequency plus larger capacity makes it far more suitable for modern game assets.

Power and physical characteristics differ as expected. The R7 M260X has no listed TDP, no slot width, and no power connectors, consistent with a mobile chip. The RX 560 has a 75 W TDP, is dual-slot, has no power connectors (it draws from the PCIe slot), and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. It measures 170 mm (6.7 inches) in length. The R7 M260X's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," while the RX 560 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has a higher average benchmark score of 5,161, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 560's 4,569. However, this is due to the RX 560's broader test suite including low-scoring legacy DirectX tests.

Q: How much faster is the RX 560 in OpenCL compute?

A: The RX 560 scores 16,472 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 65.5% higher than the R7 M260X's score of 5,690.

Q: What are the memory capacity differences?

A: The R7 M260X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory, while the RX 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the RX 560 has higher memory bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels. The R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The RX 560 also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.3 versus 1.2.170).

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The R7 M260X is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 560 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The RX 560's die is larger (123 mm² versus 77 mm²) but has over three times the transistors (3,000 million versus 950 million).

Q: Which GPU is better for modern gaming?

A: The RX 560 is significantly better for modern gaming. It has 4 GB of memory, higher clock speeds (1175 MHz base versus 620 MHz), more shading units (1,024 versus 384), and supports newer API features. Its G3D Passmark score of 3,671 versus the R7 M260X's lack of any 3D benchmark results in the database confirms its superiority.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M260X | AMD Radeon RX 560 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Chip | Opal | Polaris 21 |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M200) | Polaris (RX 500) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 950 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 620 MHz | 1175 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 715 MHz | 1275 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 7 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1,024 |

| TMUs | 24 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.720 GPixel/s | 20.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.16 GTexel/s | 81.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 549.1 GFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | null | 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | null | 75 W |

| Slot Width | null | Dual-slot |

| Suggested PSU | null | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Length | null | 170 mm (6.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-12-05 | 2017-04-17 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Arctic Islands |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Vega |

| Launch MSRP | null | 99 USD |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 30 | 26 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 5,161 | 4,569 |