AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs AMD Radeon RX 6400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains only two shared benchmark tests, and both are decisive wins for the AMD Radeon RX 6400. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6400 scores 32,011 against the R7 M260X’s 5,690, a delta of 462.6%. That is not a marginal advantage; it is a generational gap in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan result tells a similar story: the RX 6400 posts 16,372 versus 4,631, a 253.5% lead. Every shared test, both of them, goes to the newer part.

The magnitude matters. A 462.6% OpenCL lead means the RX 6400 is roughly five and a half times faster in that specific workload. For Vulkan, the lead is about three and a half times. These are not cases where driver optimizations or API overheads could flip the outcome; the differences are too large. The data shows a clean sweep: winsA is 2, winsB is 0.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins decisively. It scores 32,011 against the R7 M260X’s 5,690, a 462.6% advantage.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 6400 leads again, scoring 16,372 versus 4,631. That is a 253.5% delta in favor of the RX 6400.

Q: Does the R7 M260X win any shared benchmark?

A: No. Across the two head-to-head tests recorded in the database, the R7 M260X wins zero. The RX 6400 wins both.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between them?

A: The RX 6400 has an average benchmark score of 6,001, while the R7 M260X averages 5,161. The RX 6400 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs; the R7 M260X sits at the 30th.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 6400 has a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s, compared to the R7 M260X’s 5.720 GPixel/s. The RX 6400 is substantially ahead in this metric.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes. The database lists both the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X as end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The RX 6400 uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, which is a modern, efficiency-focused design. The R7 M260X uses the Opal chip on GCN 1.0, a much older architecture from the first generation of GCN.

The process node tells the story: the RX 6400 is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the R7 M260X uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. That process gap alone explains a large portion of the performance delta. The RX 6400 packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The R7 M260X has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 12.3M per mm². The newer part is more than four times denser in transistor packing.

Feature support diverges as well. The RX 6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores, a capability the R7 M260X does not have at all. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, while the R7 M260X only reaches DirectX 12 with feature level 11_1. Vulkan support is also newer on the RX 6400: version 1.4 versus 1.2.170 on the older chip. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6.

The RX 6400 also has a higher FP16 throughput of 7.130 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, whereas the R7 M260X has no recorded FP16 capability. The architectural generation names confirm the gap: the RX 6400 belongs to the Navi II (RX 6000) generation, while the R7 M260X belongs to the Gem System (R7 M200) generation.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. Memory is a major differentiator. The RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260X has 1 GB (1024 MB) of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. Although the older part has a wider bus, its slower memory type and lower clock speed result in exactly half the bandwidth.

Clock speeds are far apart. The RX 6400 runs a base clock of 1923 MHz and boosts to 2321 MHz, with a game clock of 2039 MHz. The R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ accordingly: the RX 6400 operates at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the R7 M260X operates at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Compute resources scale with the architecture. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The R7 M260X has half the shading units at 384, half the TMUs at 24, and only 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s for the RX 6400 versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the R7 M260X. Texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.565 TFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS.

Power and interface specifications also differ. The RX 6400 has a TDP of 53 W, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 bus interface. The R7 M260X has no recorded TDP, no slot width, no suggested PSU, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. Display outputs differ as well: the RX 6400 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R7 M260X is listed as portable device dependent.

Release timing is also recorded. The RX 6400 launched on 2022-01-18, while the R7 M260X launched on 2015-12-05. The RX 6400 has a launch MSRP of 159 USD. The R7 M260X has no recorded MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the superior part in every recorded metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (6,001 versus 5,161), a higher percentile ranking (35th versus 30th), and leads in every architectural and specification category where both devices have data. The R7 M260X cannot claim a single victory in the shared tests.

For a user deciding between these two, the RX 6400 is the clear pick for any workload that stresses compute, graphics, or memory bandwidth. The 462.6% OpenCL lead and 253.5% Vulkan lead are not subtle. The RX 6400 also offers modern features like ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which the R7 M260X lacks entirely.

The R7 M260X retains one structural advantage: a wider 128-bit memory bus. However, that bus width does not translate into a practical benefit, as its bandwidth is still half that of the RX 6400. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the older part comes out ahead.

The verdict is straightforward. The RX 6400 is the choice for anyone needing performance, modern API support, or efficiency. The R7 M260X is only relevant as a legacy part, and even then, its recorded benchmarks place it below the RX 6400 in every shared test. The database shows a decisive generational leap, and the RX 6400 is the only reasonable selection based on the measured results.