AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 are both end-of-life graphics cards from different eras, with the former being a mobile-oriented part from AMD's GCN 1.0 generation and the latter a desktop Fermi-based card from NVIDIA. The single available head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the AMD Radeon R7 M260X achieving a score of 5690 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450's 4893, marking a 16.3% advantage for the AMD part. This translates to a significant performance gap in compute workloads, though the two cards occupy similar positions in the overall GPU hierarchy, with the R7 M260X at the 30th percentile and the GTS 450 at the 28th percentile of all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is a strong indicator of general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X posts a score of 5690, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 trails with a score of 4893. This represents a 16.3% lead for the AMD card, a substantial margin that underscores the architectural efficiency of the newer GCN 1.0 design over the older Fermi architecture. The AMD R7 M260X also has a higher average benchmark score of 5161 compared to the GTS 450's 4893, reinforcing its overall performance advantage across its two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan).

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 does not win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, and its single Geekbench OpenCL score of 4893 places it behind the AMD part. While the GTS 450 has a higher theoretical FP32 performance of 601.3 GFLOPS compared to the R7 M260X's 549.1 GFLOPS, the actual benchmark results tell a different story. This suggests that the AMD card's architecture is more efficient at translating raw compute capability into real-world performance, likely due to its more modern instruction set and scheduling. The GTS 450's higher texture rate of 25.06 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 6.264 GPixel/s also do not translate into a benchmark win, indicating that the OpenCL workload used is more sensitive to shader throughput and memory subsystem efficiency than to these specific rasterization-focused metrics.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The AMD R7 M260X's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, which scores an average of 5154, a mere 0.1% behind. This places the AMD card in a tight cluster of mid-range mobile and desktop parts. The GTS 450's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which scores an average of 4901, just 0.2% ahead. This is a striking comparison, as it shows the decade-old GTS 450 performing on par with a much newer, higher-end card in this specific synthetic compute test, though the RTX 5060 Ti's score is likely limited by driver or workload characteristics in this legacy benchmark. The GTS 450 also sits near the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (average score 4929), which is a direct successor to the R7 M260X, and the AMD FirePro W5130M (average score 4904), showing a broad cluster of similar-performing GPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins decisively in the compute-oriented OpenCL benchmark, making it the clear choice for workloads that leverage general-purpose GPU computing. Its 16.3% lead over the GTS 450 in this test, combined with its higher average benchmark score of 5161, indicates a stronger overall performance profile. The R7 M260X also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 4631, which the GTS 450 lacks entirely, demonstrating compatibility with modern graphics APIs. This makes the AMD card more suitable for applications that utilize Vulkan for rendering or compute, as the NVIDIA card has no recorded Vulkan support in the data.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 does not win any recorded benchmarks, but it has specific hardware characteristics that could favor it in certain legacy scenarios. Its higher pixel rate of 6.264 GPixel/s and texture rate of 25.06 GTexel/s suggest it may handle traditional fill-rate-bound workloads better, despite losing the compute test. The GTS 450 also has a higher FP32 throughput of 601.3 GFLOPS, which could theoretically give it an edge in older applications that are not optimized for GCN's architecture. However, without benchmark data to confirm these advantages, the GTS 450's wins remain theoretical. The card's 16 ROPs and 32 TMUs are double those of the R7 M260X (8 ROPs and 24 TMUs), which could translate to better performance in games that are heavily dependent on rasterization and texture filtering.

For users prioritizing modern API support and compute performance, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the superior choice. Its Vulkan support and OpenCL lead make it a more versatile and future-proof option for a wider range of applications. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, with its higher raw fill rates, might still be relevant for very old DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 titles that are not compute-intensive, but the data suggests it is outclassed in anything that stresses the shader units or memory bandwidth. The R7 M260X's memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s is notably higher than the GTS 450's 57.73 GB/s, which is a critical factor in many compute and gaming workloads.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon R7 M260X than the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893, giving the AMD card a 16.3% performance advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 support the Vulkan graphics API?

A: No, the data shows no Vulkan support for the GTS 450. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X, in contrast, supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4631.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card, and how do they rank?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has an average benchmark score of 5161 and ranks in the 30th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 has an average score of 4893 and ranks in the 28th percentile.

Q: Which card has a higher theoretical FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 has a higher FP32 performance of 601.3 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M260X's 549.1 GFLOPS. Despite this, the AMD card wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests that the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 wins?

A: No, the data records zero benchmark wins for the GTS 450. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins the only head-to-head benchmark test available (Geekbench OpenCL).

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

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, which is higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450's 57.73 GB/s. Both cards have 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Specification Differences

The most significant specification differences between the two cards lie in their process nodes, transistor counts, and memory clocks. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 uses a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. This process advantage allows the R7 M260X to pack 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The GTS 450, by contrast, has 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, yielding a density of only 4.9M per mm². This fundamental difference in manufacturing technology explains much of the performance and efficiency gap between the two.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The AMD R7 M260X has a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost clock of 715 MHz, while the GTS 450 has no base or boost clocks listed. Memory clocks are also different, with the R7 M260X running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and the GTS 450 at 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The memory bandwidth reflects these clock differences, with the AMD card achieving 64.00 GB/s versus the NVIDIA card's 57.73 GB/s. The bus interface also differs, with the R7 M260X using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the GTS 450 using PCIe 2.0 x16.

The physical and power characteristics are starkly different. The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, a suggested PSU of 300 W, and is a dual-slot card measuring 210 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The R7 M260X has no listed TDP, no power connectors (indicating it draws power from the system bus), and its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," confirming its mobile design. The GTS 450 has fixed display outputs of 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these GPUs is generational. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, specifically the Opal chip, and belongs to the "Gem System (R7 M200)" generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 400 generation. GCN 1.0 was designed for compute-heavy workloads, with a unified shader design that excels in parallel processing, while Fermi was NVIDIA's first major departure from its older architecture, also emphasizing compute but with a different execution model.

The core configuration differs significantly. The AMD R7 M260X features 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. While the AMD card has double the shader units, the NVIDIA card has more TMUs and ROPs, which explains its higher pixel and texture rates. The API support also reflects the architectural differences: the R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed.

The release dates place these cards five years apart, with the GTS 450 launching on 2010-09-12 and the R7 M260X on 2015-12-05. The predecessor and successor lines also differ, with the R7 M260X following the "Solar System" generation and leading to "Polaris Mobile," while the GTS 450 follows "GeForce 200" and leads to "GeForce 500." The R7 M260X's GCN architecture was designed to be more efficient per clock than Fermi, which is reflected in its higher benchmark scores despite lower theoretical FP32 and fill rates. The GTS 450's larger die and higher transistor count are a direct result of the older 40 nm process, which required more space and power to achieve similar levels of performance.