AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M and AMD Radeon R7 M260X are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 28 nm era, but they approach performance from different architectural philosophies. Benchmark data shows the GeForce 840M maintains a consistent, albeit modest, lead over the Radeon R7 M260X in both tested workloads, with the gap widening significantly in Vulkan-based applications. The two GPUs occupy nearly identical positions in the overall performance percentile rankings, yet their underlying designs produce distinct strengths that matter depending on the software environment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce 840M wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margin tells different stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA part scores 5764 against the AMD’s 5690, a delta of just 1.3%. This is a narrow victory — the kind that could be attributed to driver optimization or thermal behavior within a specific laptop chassis. The data indicates near-parity in OpenCL compute workloads, with the 840M edging ahead by only 74 points.

The Vulkan result is more decisive. The GeForce 840M posts 4880 points while the Radeon R7 M260X manages 4631, yielding a 5.4% advantage for NVIDIA. This is a meaningful gap in graphics API performance, suggesting that the Maxwell architecture’s Vulkan implementation is more efficient than AMD’s GCN 1.0 in this generation. The 249-point spread in Vulkan is over three times the OpenCL difference, pointing to a software stack advantage rather than raw hardware superiority.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all tests, the GeForce 840M averages 5322 compared to the Radeon’s 5161. The 161-point difference represents roughly a 3% overall advantage for NVIDIA. Interestingly, the 840M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M445, which scores 5358 and beats the 840M by 0.7%. The R7 M260X, meanwhile, trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M by 1.4% (5236 vs 5161) and beats the AMD Radeon R7 240 by 1.9% (5063). These rival relationships place both GPUs in a tightly packed mid-range mobile segment where 1-2% swings are common.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share a 28 nm process node at TSMC, but their internal layouts diverge sharply. NVIDIA’s GM108S packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. AMD’s Opal chip uses 950 million transistors on the same 77 mm² footprint, yielding 12.3 million per square millimeter. The 7% transistor count advantage for NVIDIA does not translate into a proportional performance lead, as the benchmark data shows.

The GeForce 840M runs at a base clock of 1029 MHz with a boost up to 1124 MHz, while the Radeon R7 M260X operates at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. This is a substantial clock speed advantage for NVIDIA — roughly 66% higher base and 57% higher boost. However, clock speed alone does not determine performance, as the AMD part compensates with different architectural efficiencies.

Memory configurations are where the two cards diverge most dramatically. The 840M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260X uses 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.00 GB/s — exactly four times the bandwidth of the NVIDIA part. This is a massive difference in memory throughput, yet the benchmark results show the 840M still wins, indicating that the R7 M260X does not effectively utilize its bandwidth advantage in these workloads.

Shader counts are identical at 384 shading units for both GPUs. However, NVIDIA configures them with 16 texture mapping units and 8 render output units, while AMD uses 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The extra TMUs give the Radeon a 50% texture unit advantage, but the 840M’s higher clocks produce a texture rate of 17.98 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s for the AMD part. Pixel rates tell a different story: the 840M achieves 8.992 GPixel/s against 5.720 GPixel/s for the R7 M260X, a 57% advantage for NVIDIA driven by its much higher clock speed.

Compute performance follows a similar pattern. The GeForce 840M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Radeon R7 M260X manages 549.1 GFLOPS — NVIDIA holds a 57% lead. API support shows NVIDIA offering DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while AMD matches with DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, but only Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vulkan version gap may partially explain the 840M’s stronger Vulkan benchmark performance.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 840M wins in raw compute throughput and graphics APIs. Its FP32 performance of 863.2 GFLOPS is 57% higher than the Radeon’s 549.1 GFLOPS, making it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads that leverage shader units. The Vulkan benchmark victory (4880 vs 4631) suggests better optimization for modern graphics APIs, and the OpenCL win (5764 vs 5690), while narrow, still favors NVIDIA. The 840M also delivers significantly higher pixel fill rate at 8.992 GPixel/s, which benefits resolution-bound rendering tasks.

The Radeon R7 M260X wins in memory bandwidth and texture throughput potential. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is four times the 840M’s 16.02 GB/s, which could benefit bandwidth-sensitive workloads like high-resolution texture streaming or certain compute algorithms. The 24 TMUs versus 16 give AMD a theoretical texture processing edge, though the actual texture rate (17.16 GTexel/s) falls slightly behind NVIDIA’s 17.98 GTexel/s due to clock speed differences. The R7 M260X also has a 128-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, which provides more headroom for memory-heavy tasks.

Neither GPU wins decisively across all categories. The data shows the 840M leads in both benchmark tests, but the R7 M260X’s memory subsystem offers a different performance profile that could yield advantages in specific applications not captured by Geekbench. The Radeon’s 1 GB frame buffer is half the 840M’s 2 GB, which could limit texture detail in games with large asset requirements.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher benchmark scores?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 5764 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5690 for the Radeon R7 M260X (1.3% delta), and 4880 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4631 (5.4% delta).

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Radeon R7 M260X has a massive advantage with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The GeForce 840M has only 16.02 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus — exactly one quarter of the AMD part’s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The GeForce 840M operates at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the Radeon R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. NVIDIA’s clocks are roughly 66% higher at base and 57% higher at boost.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The GeForce 840M uses 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die (13.2 million per mm²). The Radeon R7 M260X uses 950 million transistors on the same 77 mm² die (12.3 million per mm²).

Q: How do these GPUs rank against other mobile chips?

A: The GeForce 840M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 5322. The Radeon R7 M260X is at the 30th percentile with an average score of 5161. The 840M is 0.1% ahead of the GeForce 930A and 0.7% behind the GeForce 940M, while the R7 M260X is 1.9% ahead of the Radeon R7 240.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan support?

A: The GeForce 840M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon R7 M260X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The benchmark data confirms this advantage: the 840M scores 4880 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4631 for the R7 M260X.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M is the clear winner based on benchmark data, taking both head-to-head tests and posting a higher average score (5322 vs 5161). The 5.4% Vulkan advantage is particularly notable, as it suggests better forward-looking API performance. The 840M’s higher clock speeds (1029 MHz base vs 620 MHz) and superior FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS vs 549.1 GFLOPS) deliver tangible compute advantages that show up in real workloads.

The Radeon R7 M260X is not without merit. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is exceptional for this class, and the 128-bit bus provides a foundation for bandwidth-hungry applications. The 24 texture units also give it a theoretical edge in texture-heavy scenarios. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark victories — the AMD part loses both tests despite its memory superiority.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, modern API support, and higher pixel fill rates, the GeForce 840M is the better choice. Its 2 GB frame buffer also doubles the Radeon’s 1 GB, providing more headroom for texture-heavy content. The R7 M260X could appeal to those who expect bandwidth-sensitive workloads to dominate, but the data does not support that expectation in the tested benchmarks. Given the 840M’s consistent wins and higher percentile ranking, it is the superior mobile GPU for general and graphics-oriented tasks.