AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X and NVIDIA GeForce 940MX are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 2015-2016 era, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process node. The data shows a near-perfect split in benchmark wins: the AMD part takes the OpenCL test, while the NVIDIA part edges ahead in Vulkan. With an average benchmark score of 5161 against 4844, the AMD R7 M260X holds a 6.5% overall lead, but the 940MX counters with a lower 23 W TDP and a more modern feature set in specific APIs. This analysis breaks down where each GPU excels, what separates their architectures, and which one the benchmark data favors for different workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results split cleanly by API workload. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively, scoring 5690 against the 940MX’s 4939. That is a 15.2% margin in AMD’s favor, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy OpenCL tasks. The data suggests AMD’s architecture handles this general-purpose compute workload more efficiently, despite having fewer shading units (384 vs. 512) and a lower FP32 throughput of 549.1 GFLOPS compared to 881.7 GFLOPS on the NVIDIA part.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX takes the Vulkan test, scoring 4749 versus the AMD’s 4631, a 2.5% advantage. While the margin is smaller than AMD’s OpenCL win, it is still a meaningful lead in a modern graphics API. This indicates the 940MX’s Maxwell architecture translates its raw compute advantage into better performance in Vulkan-specific workloads, likely due to driver optimization and API-level feature support. The 940MX also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M260X only supports Vulkan 1.2.170, giving NVIDIA a version-level edge.

In terms of overall standing, the R7 M260X sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the 940MX sits at the 28th. The AMD part’s average score of 5161 places it slightly above rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154) and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063), while the 940MX’s 4844 average is comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855) and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867). The use-case split is therefore straightforward: choose the R7 M260X for OpenCL compute, and choose the 940MX for Vulkan graphics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on the same 28 nm TSMC process node, but their internal designs diverge sharply. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, packing 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die. In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture, containing 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical (12.3M / mm² for AMD, 12.6M / mm² for NVIDIA), but NVIDIA’s larger die allows for significantly more hardware resources.

The core counts tell the story. The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and the same 8 ROPs. This gives NVIDIA a 33% advantage in shading units and TMUs, which directly translates to higher theoretical throughput: the 940MX delivers 881.7 GFLOPS FP32 and 27.55 GTexel/s, versus 549.1 GFLOPS and 17.16 GTexel/s for the AMD. The pixel rate is also higher on NVIDIA at 6.888 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The R7 M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 940MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, but with a higher effective memory clock of 5 Gbps, it achieves only 40.10 GB/s. This means the AMD part has 60% more memory bandwidth, which likely contributes to its OpenCL win despite lower compute throughput. The NVIDIA part’s larger frame buffer is an advantage for higher-resolution textures.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA. The 940MX runs at a base of 795 MHz and boosts to 861 MHz, while the R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. The NVIDIA chip also has a lower TDP of 23 W, whereas the AMD part has no listed TDP, and the 940MX comes in an MXM Module form factor. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8 and have no power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has 512 shading units and delivers 881.7 GFLOPS FP32, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M260X’s 384 shading units and 549.1 GFLOPS. NVIDIA also leads in texture rate (27.55 GTexel/s vs. 17.16 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (6.888 GPixel/s vs. 5.720 GPixel/s).

Q: Why does the AMD R7 M260X win the OpenCL benchmark despite lower compute specs?

A: The R7 M260X has 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth on a 128-bit bus, versus 40.10 GB/s on the 940MX’s 64-bit bus. This 60% bandwidth advantage appears to outweigh the NVIDIA part’s higher shading unit count in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD scores 5690 against 4939.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X only supports Vulkan 1.2.170. This aligns with the 940MX’s 2.5% win in the Geekbench Vulkan test (4749 vs. 4631).

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X has 1 GB. Both use GDDR5, but the AMD part has a wider 128-bit bus compared to NVIDIA’s 64-bit bus.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The AMD R7 M260X averages 5161, putting it 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154) and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063). The NVIDIA 940MX averages 4844, which is 0.2% behind the GeForce GTX 560M (4855) and 1.1% ahead of the GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791).

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has a listed TDP of 23 W, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X has no TDP listed in the data. This suggests the NVIDIA part is designed for lower power consumption, though direct comparison is limited by the missing AMD figure.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M260X | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX |

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

| Chip | Opal | GM107 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M200) | GeForce 900M |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Base Clock | 620 MHz | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 715 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.720 GPixel/s | 6.888 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.16 GTexel/s | 27.55 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 549.1 GFLOPS | 881.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 23 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | MXM Module |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-12-05 | 2016-06-27 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | GeForce 10 Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available benchmark tests show a clear trade-off between the GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690 against the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX’s 4939, a 15.2% delta in AMD’s favor. This is the larger of the two margins and represents the most significant performance gap in the comparison. The AMD part’s advantage here is likely tied to its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is 60% higher than the NVIDIA’s 40.10 GB/s. Even though the 940MX has 512 shading units and 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, the AMD GPU’s memory subsystem appears to be the deciding factor in this workload.

The Geekbench Vulkan test reverses the outcome. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4749, while the AMD R7 M260X scores 4631, giving NVIDIA a 2.5% win. This margin is much narrower than AMD’s OpenCL lead, suggesting the 940MX’s architectural advantages (more shading units, higher clocks, newer Vulkan version) are only partially able to overcome AMD’s bandwidth advantage. The Vulkan result is consistent with the 940MX’s Maxwell architecture being better optimized for this API, as evidenced by its Vulkan 1.4 support versus the AMD’s 1.2.170.

When considering the average benchmark score, the AMD part maintains its overall lead. The R7 M260X averages 5161 across both tests, while the 940MX averages 4844, a 6.5% difference. The AMD GPU’s OpenCL dominance is strong enough to offset its Vulkan deficit. The data also shows the R7 M260X sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, two points higher than the 940MX’s 28th percentile, reinforcing its edge in aggregate performance.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a nuanced picture. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the better choice for OpenCL compute workloads, where its 15.2% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is substantial. Its 128-bit memory bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth give it a clear advantage in memory-intensive tasks, despite having fewer shading units and lower clock speeds. The AMD part’s average score of 5161 also places it above the 940MX’s 4844, and its percentile ranking (30th vs. 28th) confirms this aggregate superiority.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, however, is the more balanced performer for graphics-oriented APIs. Its 2.5% win in the Geekbench Vulkan test, combined with Vulkan 1.4 support, makes it the better option for users prioritizing modern graphics workloads. The 940MX also offers 2 GB of memory versus 1 GB on the AMD part, which is a practical advantage for storing larger textures. Its lower TDP of 23 W (where the AMD has no listed figure) and higher FP32 throughput of 881.7 GFLOPS further tip the scales toward NVIDIA for efficiency-conscious applications.

The verdict depends on the use case. For compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the data-backed winner. For Vulkan-based graphics and scenarios where memory capacity matters, the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is preferable. The data does not support a single universal winner, but it does show the AMD part has a higher overall average score and a stronger position relative to its rivals. Users who value raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth should choose the R7 M260X; those who need modern API support and a larger frame buffer should choose the 940MX.