AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and AMD Radeon R7 M260X are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they occupy different tiers of performance. Benchmark data shows the GTX 765M holds a clear advantage, winning both head-to-head tests and posting a higher average benchmark score of 5501 compared to 5161 for the R7 M260X. This places the NVIDIA part at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD chip sits at the 30th percentile. For anyone choosing between these two in a used or legacy laptop, the data points firmly toward the GTX 765M as the stronger performer, though the R7 M260X may still be acceptable for lighter loads.

The Verdict

The GTX 765M is the outright winner in every measured category. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 7176 against 5690 for the R7 M260X, a 26.1% lead. In the Vulkan test, the gap widens dramatically, with the GTX 765M scoring 6714 versus 4631, a 45% advantage. The average benchmark score confirms this trend, with the NVIDIA card averaging 5501, which is 6.6% higher than the AMD card's 5161 average. If you need a mobile GPU for gaming or any compute-heavy task, the GTX 765M is the only reasonable pick from this pair.

The R7 M260X, by contrast, is a weaker option that sits close to the bottom of the performance spectrum. Its 30th percentile ranking means most other GPUs outperform it. The data shows it loses to the GTX 765M in both available tests, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and the AMD Radeon R7 240, which are themselves older or lower-tier parts. This is not a GPU for demanding work; it is suitable only for basic productivity or very old games. The GTX 765M, while also dated, offers more than double the compute throughput in some metrics and should be the default choice wherever available.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 765M wins in every scenario involving raw performance. Its OpenCL score of 7176 indicates it can handle general-purpose compute workloads, such as video encoding or physics simulations, much better than the R7 M260X. The Vulkan score of 6714 shows it is also more capable in modern graphics APIs, delivering a 45% higher result, which translates to smoother frame rates in Vulkan-based games. For any use case that stresses the GPU, the NVIDIA card is the clear winner.

The R7 M260X has no benchmark wins to claim. In both head-to-head tests, it finishes behind. However, the data does not show a single metric where the AMD card outperforms the NVIDIA card. Its only potential advantage is indirect: it has a smaller die size of 77 mm², which could imply lower power draw, but no TDP figure is provided for the R7 M260X in the fact pack, so this cannot be verified. In practical terms, the R7 M260X is only a choice if the GTX 765M is not available in a given laptop, and even then, expectations should be minimal.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The GTX 765M uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture on a chip codenamed GK106, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a large chip, with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². The R7 M260X uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip called Opal, also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but it is a much smaller chip with only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher density of 12.3 million per mm².

The core configurations differ massively. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA chip has exactly double the shading units, over 2.6 times the TMUs, and double the ROPs. Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA: the GTX 765M runs at a base of 797 MHz with a boost up to 863 MHz, while the R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. The result is that the GTX 765M delivers 1,325.6 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R7 M260X manages only 549.1 GFLOPS.

Memory configurations are similar in bus width, with both using a 128-bit interface and GDDR5 memory at effectively 4 Gbps. However, the GTX 765M has 2 GB of memory, while the R7 M260X has only 1024 MB. Bandwidth is nearly identical, at 64.13 GB/s for NVIDIA and 64.00 GB/s for AMD. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 765M is limited to feature level 11_0, while the R7 M260X supports 11_1. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan versions differ slightly: 1.2.175 for NVIDIA and 1.2.170 for AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M has a higher average benchmark score of 5501, compared to 5161 for the AMD Radeon R7 M260X.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 765M in the OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 765M scores 7176 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 26.1% higher than the R7 M260X's score of 5690.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two GPUs?

A: The largest gap is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the GTX 765M scores 6714 versus 4631 for the R7 M260X, a 45% difference.

Q: Does the R7 M260X have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: No, the opposite is true. The GTX 765M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the R7 M260X has only 1024 MB.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, which is exactly double the 384 shading units found on the R7 M260X.

Q: Are both GPUs built on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, although they use different architectures, with the GTX 765M using Kepler and the R7 M260X using GCN 1.0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 765M achieves a score of 7176, while the R7 M260X scores 5690. That is a 26.1% lead for NVIDIA, which is significant in real-world terms for compute workloads. The GTX 765M's advantage comes from its higher clock speeds and double the shading units, allowing it to process more parallel threads per cycle. The R7 M260X's lower FP32 throughput of 549.1 GFLOPS, versus 1,325.6 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA chip, explains this gap.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger disparity. The GTX 765M scores 6714, while the R7 M260X manages only 4631, giving NVIDIA a 45% win. This is a substantial margin that would be very noticeable in any Vulkan-based game. The R7 M260X's older GCN 1.0 architecture and lower clock speeds (715 MHz boost versus 863 MHz boost) hamper its ability to keep up. The GTX 765M also benefits from a higher pixel rate of 13.81 GPixel/s and texture rate of 55.23 GTexel/s, compared to 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s for the AMD card.

In terms of comparative positioning, the GTX 765M's average score of 5501 puts it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440. It is also 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and 0.7% behind the AMD FirePro M4000. The R7 M260X, with an average of 5161, is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M but 1% behind the Quadro 4000M and 1.4% behind the GeForce GTX 760M. These numbers show that the GTX 765M sits in a slightly higher performance class, while the R7 M260X is closer to entry-level parts.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows several key differences between the two GPUs. The most notable is the core configuration: the GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This is a 2x difference in shading units and ROPs, and a 2.67x difference in TMUs. Clock speeds also differ, with the GTX 765M running at 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost, while the R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost.

Memory capacity is another differentiator, with the GTX 765M offering 2 GB of GDDR5 versus 1024 MB on the R7 M260X. Both use a 128-bit bus and GDDR5 memory at 4 Gbps effective, resulting in nearly identical bandwidths of 64.13 GB/s and 64.00 GB/s. The transistor counts are vastly different, with the GTX 765M using 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the R7 M260X uses 950 million on a 77 mm² die. The TDP is listed as 75 W for the GTX 765M, but no TDP is provided for the R7 M260X.

The bus interface also differs: the GTX 765M uses an MXM-B (3.0) connector, while the R7 M260X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 765M was released earlier, on 2013-05-29, while the R7 M260X came later on 2015-12-05. The GTX 765M's predecessor is the GeForce 600M and its successor is the GeForce 800M, while the R7 M260X's predecessor is the Solar System and its successor is the Polaris Mobile.