AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

The Verdict

The data in this comparison is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is in a completely different performance class than the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the GTX 970M wins both, with the R7 M260X trailing by 70% in Geekbench OpenCL and 74.7% in Geekbench Vulkan. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the AMD part comes out ahead.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on the intended workload. The GTX 970M, with its 2.657 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 120.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, is the only sensible pick for any modern gaming or GPU-accelerated task. The R7 M260X, despite its lower scores, does hold one advantage: it is built on a smaller die (77 mm² versus 398 mm²) and consumes less power, though exact TDP figures are not recorded. This makes it a candidate for thin-and-light systems where thermal constraints dominate.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The R7 M260X posts an average of 5161 across its recorded tests, while the GTX 970M averages 4628. However, this aggregate figure is misleading because the R7 M260X has only two benchmark entries, both of which are compute-focused. The GTX 970M has ten entries spanning DirectX 9 through 12, 2D, 3D, and compute workloads. The GTX 970M's PassMark G3D score of 5704 and its DirectX 11 score of 42 dwarf anything the R7 M260X can produce, since the AMD part has no DirectX game benchmarks recorded at all.

In short: the GTX 970M is the performance winner without qualification. The R7 M260X is a legacy entry-level part that should only be considered in systems where the GTX 970M physically cannot fit, such as those limited to the smaller PCIe 3.0 x8 form factor rather than the MXM-B module.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is dramatically faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 18946 versus 5690 for the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, a 70% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 970M scores 18292 versus 4631, a 74.7% lead.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD R7 M260X has a higher average benchmark score of 5161 compared to the GTX 970M's 4628. However, this is based on different test sets. The AMD part only has two compute tests, while the GTX 970M has ten tests including DirectX 9 through 12, 2D, and 3D workloads, making the averages not directly comparable.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The AMD R7 M260X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 120.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 970M has six times the memory and nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX versions?

A: The NVIDIA GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The GTX 970M's feature level 12_1 is a higher tier than the AMD part's 11_1.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA GTX 970M uses 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the AMD R7 M260X uses 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Both are manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The AMD R7 M260X was released in December 2015, and the NVIDIA GTX 970M was released in October 2014.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Opal chip. It is a 28 nm part fabricated by TSMC, with 950 million transistors packed into a 77 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.3 million per square millimeter. This is a small, low-power design intended for basic mobile graphics.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on the GM204 chip. It is also a 28 nm TSMC part, but it is vastly larger: 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. Maxwell 2.0 introduced significant efficiency improvements over AMD's GCN 1.0, particularly in geometry processing and color compression, which helps explain the performance gap despite the same process node.

The compute resources differ enormously. The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The GTX 970M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That is 3.3 times the shaders, 3.3 times the TMUs, and 6 times the ROPs. The GTX 970M's pixel rate is 49.82 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the AMD part, an 8.7x advantage. Texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s, a 4.8x advantage.

API support also differs. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version on the GTX 970M indicate better long-term software compatibility.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear divergence in nearly every measurable category. The clock speeds tell the first part of the story. The AMD R7 M260X runs at a base clock of 620 MHz with a boost of 715 MHz. The NVIDIA GTX 970M runs at 924 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. The GTX 970M's boost clock is 45% higher than the AMD part's base clock.

Memory clocks also differ. The AMD part operates at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the NVIDIA part runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. Memory capacity is 1024 MB versus 6 GB, and bus width is 128 bit versus 192 bit. The resulting bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s for the AMD part and 120.3 GB/s for the NVIDIA part.

Compute throughput shows the largest gap. The R7 M260X delivers 549.1 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. The GTX 970M delivers 2.657 TFLOPS, which is approximately 4.8 times higher. Neither part has recorded FP16 capability.

The form factor differs as well. The AMD part uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, while the NVIDIA part uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is described as an MXM Module. Both have no power connectors listed, and both have display outputs described as portable device dependent. Neither has a recorded TDP, slot width dimensions beyond the MXM designation for the NVIDIA part, or suggested PSU rating.

The release dates are close: the AMD part launched in December 2015, the NVIDIA part in October 2014. The AMD part's predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark data consists of exactly two tests, both compute-oriented, and both are decisive wins for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M scores 18946 against the R7 M260X's 5690. The delta is 70% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This test measures raw compute throughput across a variety of OpenCL workloads, and the 4.8x FP32 advantage of the GTX 970M shows up clearly. The AMD part's score of 5690 places it near its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, which averages 5154 (0.1% delta), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063 (1.9% delta). The GTX 970M's score, by contrast, is roughly 3.3 times higher than its own nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (0.2% delta).

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens slightly. The GTX 970M scores 18292 versus 4631 for the R7 M260X, a 74.7% delta. This test reflects both compute and graphics pipeline efficiency under the Vulkan API. The GTX 970M's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, with its newer feature set and higher clock speeds, handles the modern API much more effectively. The AMD part's Vulkan 1.2.170 support is older than the NVIDIA part's Vulkan 1.4, which may contribute to the larger delta in this test compared to OpenCL.

Beyond these two shared tests, the GTX 970M has additional recorded benchmarks that the R7 M260X lacks. Its PassMark G3D score is 5704, its DirectX 11 score is 42, its DirectX 9 score is 99, and its GPU compute score is 2289. It also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 472. The R7 M260X has no DirectX or PassMark entries in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for gaming workloads. However, the GTX 970M's raw compute and pixel throughput advantages, combined with its higher DirectX feature level, strongly indicate better gaming performance.

The win count is 2 for the GTX 970M and 0 for the R7 M260X in head-to-head tests. The percentile ranking versus all GPUs is 27 for the GTX 970M and 30 for the R7 M260X, which seems counterintuitive given the benchmark results. This is likely due to the different test sets: the GTX 970M's average of 4628 includes demanding DirectX 12 and 3DMark tests, while the R7 M260X's average of 5161 is based only on two compute tests where it performs relatively better against the broader GPU population. The head-to-head data, not the aggregate percentile, is the more reliable indicator of relative performance between these two specific parts.