AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M and AMD Radeon R7 M260X are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions that land within a single percentage point of each other in aggregate benchmark scores. The GTX 760M averages 5,236 across its benchmark suite, while the R7 M260X averages 5,161, a negligible 1.4% gap. The two GPUs split their two head-to-head tests, with AMD taking the OpenCL workload and NVIDIA winning the Vulkan test, making a final decision dependent on which API the target application favors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two head-to-head benchmark results reveal a clear split in workload preferences. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5,690 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M’s 5,604. That is a 1.5% margin in AMD’s favor, showing that the R7 M260X holds a measurable edge in compute-oriented tasks that leverage OpenCL. This result aligns with the R7 M260X’s higher average score in its own nearest-rival comparison, where it sits 1.9% above the AMD Radeon R7 240, a lower-tier desktop part.

The Vulkan test tells the opposite story. Here, the GTX 760M posts 4,868 versus the R7 M260X’s 4,631, giving NVIDIA a 5.1% victory. This is the largest delta between the two parts in either benchmark, and it is a substantial enough margin to suggest that the Kepler architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently than GCN 1.0 does. In the context of its nearest rivals, the GTX 760M’s Vulkan score places it 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940M and 0.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, indicating that it is competitive within its own ecosystem despite being an older design.

Aggregate scores reinforce the near-parity. The GTX 760M’s average of 5,236 places it 1.5% above the R7 M260X’s 5,161, but that difference shrinks to just 1.4% when viewed from the AMD part’s perspective. The percentile rankings are equally close: the GTX 760M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M260X sits at the 30th. Both are firmly in the lower-midrange of the overall GPU landscape, but the data shows that neither part has a decisive aggregate advantage over the other.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families, which explains their divergent benchmark behavior. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK106S chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. That chip contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with only 950 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, giving it a higher density of 12.3 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ significantly. The GTX 760M packs 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The R7 M260X has exactly half the shading units at 384, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. These hardware numbers translate directly into theoretical throughput: the GTX 760M delivers 1,104.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, 46.02 GTexel/s of texture fill, and 11.50 GPixel/s of pixel rate. The R7 M260X manages 549.1 GFLOPS, 17.16 GTexel/s, and 5.720 GPixel/s. In every raw throughput metric, the NVIDIA part is roughly double the AMD part, yet the benchmark results show only a small aggregate difference, indicating that the AMD architecture extracts more real-world performance per unit of theoretical compute.

Clock speeds are similar, with the GTX 760M running at a 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost, while the R7 M260X operates at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. Memory configurations are also close: both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with the GTX 760M offering 2 GB at 64.13 GB/s and the R7 M260X offering 1 GB at 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA part has a higher bus interface of PCIe 3.0 x16, while the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8. API support differs in one key area: the GTX 760M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), giving AMD a slight feature-level advantage. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan versions differ, with NVIDIA at 1.2.175 and AMD at 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M has an average benchmark score of 5,236, which is 1.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260X’s average of 5,161.

Q: Why does the AMD R7 M260X win the OpenCL test despite having fewer shading units?

A: The R7 M260X scores 5,690 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 1.5% higher than the GTX 760M’s 5,604. This suggests that the GCN 1.0 architecture is more efficient at executing OpenCL workloads, despite having 384 fewer shading units and roughly half the FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the margin of NVIDIA’s victory in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The GTX 760M scores 4,868 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 5.1% higher than the R7 M260X’s 4,631. This is the largest performance gap between the two parts in any measured test.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both the GTX 760M and the R7 M260X are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, the GTX 760M’s die is 221 mm², while the R7 M260X’s die is only 77 mm².

Q: How does the memory configuration compare?

A: Both GPUs use GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 760M has 2 GB of memory with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M260X has 1 GB with 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA part also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, whereas the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Q: Which GPU has higher theoretical pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The GTX 760M has a pixel rate of 11.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 46.02 GTexel/s. The R7 M260X has a pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.16 GTexel/s, meaning the NVIDIA part is roughly double in both metrics.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows several key differences between the two GPUs. The GTX 760M uses the GK106S chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the R7 M260X uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the AMD part at 12.3M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm². The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus the R7 M260X’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. FP32 compute is 1,104.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 549.1 GFLOPS for AMD. Texture rate is 46.02 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s, and pixel rate is 11.50 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s.

Memory capacity differs, with the GTX 760M offering 2 GB and the R7 M260X offering 1 GB. Bandwidth is nearly identical at 64.13 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 760M has a base clock of 628 MHz and boost of 719 MHz, while the R7 M260X has 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA and PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. DirectX support differs, with the GTX 760M at version 12 (11_0) and the R7 M260X at 12 (11_1). Vulkan versions are 1.2.175 and 1.2.170, respectively. The GTX 760M has a TDP of 55 W, while the R7 M260X has no listed TDP. The GTX 760M uses an MXM Module slot width, while the AMD part has no listed slot width. Release dates are also different, with the GTX 760M launching on 2013-05-29 and the R7 M260X on 2015-12-05.

The Verdict

The data presents a mixed picture that resists a single clear winner. The GTX 760M has a higher average benchmark score (5,236 versus 5,161) and a 5.1% win in Vulkan, but the R7 M260X counters with a 1.5% win in OpenCL and a higher percentile ranking in that specific test. For users prioritizing Vulkan-based applications, the GTX 760M is the stronger choice, as its 5.1% margin is the largest performance gap recorded between the two. The GTX 760M also offers double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB) and double the theoretical throughput in every measured metric, which could matter for applications that scale with raw compute resources.

For users prioritizing OpenCL workloads, the R7 M260X is the better option, as its 5,690 score in that test shows higher efficiency in that API. The R7 M260X also supports a newer DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0), which may provide better compatibility with certain modern titles. The aggregate scores are close enough that the deciding factor should be the specific application mix. The GTX 760M’s higher average score and Vulkan advantage make it the default recommendation for general use, but the R7 M260X is not a clear downgrade given its OpenCL win.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M wins in Vulkan-based applications, posting a 5.1% higher score in Geekbench Vulkan. It also wins in aggregate benchmark score, with a 1.4% higher average. The GTX 760M offers double the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1 GB, which can be a decisive factor in memory-intensive tasks. Its theoretical throughput is roughly double that of the R7 M260X in FP32, texture, and pixel rates, making it the better choice for workloads that can utilize that raw compute headroom. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides double the bus bandwidth of the R7 M260X’s x8 link.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins in OpenCL-based applications, with a 1.5% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL. It achieves this despite having half the shading units and half the FP32 throughput of the GTX 760M, indicating superior architectural efficiency in that API. The R7 M260X also supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a newer feature level than the GTX 760M’s DirectX 12 (11_0), potentially broadening compatibility with newer games. Its higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm²) suggests a more compact design that could be advantageous in thermally constrained laptop chassis, though no TDP data is available for the R7 M260X to confirm this. For users whose primary workloads are OpenCL compute tasks, the R7 M260X is the data-backed choice.