AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unequivocal picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M dominates the AMD Radeon R7 M260X in every head-to-head comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 980M scores 23,832 against the R7 M260X's 5,690, a commanding 318.8% advantage. This is not a marginal victory; the NVIDIA part outperforms the AMD part by a factor of roughly four in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload. The Geekbench Vulkan result tells a similar story, with the GTX 980M posting 17,703 versus the R7 M260X's 4,631, a 282.3% lead. Both wins belong to NVIDIA, with zero benchmark victories for the AMD product.

Contextualizing these results with the broader performance landscape reinforces the gap. The GTX 980M's average benchmark score across all tested workloads is 5,308, placing it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (average score 5,317, a 0.2% deficit), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5,322, 0.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5,284, 0.5% ahead). This clustering shows that the GTX 980M sits in a tightly contested mid-range desktop-mobile tier, despite its decisive win over the R7 M260X. The AMD part, meanwhile, averages 5,161 across its benchmark suite, landing in the 30th percentile. Its closest competitors are the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5,154, 0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5,211, 1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5,236, 1.4% ahead). The R7 M260X also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 240 by 1.9%, but that is cold comfort against the GTX 980M's overwhelming head-to-head margin.

The PassMark suite, though only available for the GTX 980M, adds further texture to its profile. The GTX 980M scores 7,338 in PassMark G3D, 125 in DirectX 9, 57 in DirectX 11, 35 in DirectX 10, and 31 in DirectX 12, alongside 2,816 in GPU Compute and 490 in G2D. These numbers indicate a part that handles legacy DirectX 9 workloads best, with progressively lower scores on newer API versions—a pattern typical of mobile GPUs from this era. The absence of comparable PassMark data for the R7 M260X limits a direct comparison, but the Geekbench results alone establish a clear hierarchy.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins decisively, scoring 23,832 against the AMD Radeon R7 M260X's 5,690, a 318.8% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 980M in Vulkan compute?

A: The GTX 980M scores 17,703 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 282.3% higher than the R7 M260X's 4,631.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The GTX 980M averages 5,308 across all its tested benchmarks, while the R7 M260X averages 5,161.

Q: How do these GPUs rank among all graphics cards?

A: The GTX 980M sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M260X is in the 30th percentile—a negligible overall ranking difference despite the large head-to-head gap.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 980M offers 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit bus and 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, versus the R7 M260X's 64.00 GB/s from a 128-bit bus and 1 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the R7 M260X beats the GTX 980M?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests available (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the GTX 980M wins both. The wins tally is 2 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, utilizing the Opal chip. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm TSMC node, but the AMD chip is dramatically smaller: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The GTX 980M's die is more than five times larger, and its transistor count is over five times higher—a reflection of its position as a high-end mobile part versus the R7 M260X's entry-level status.

The compute resources differ by a similar magnitude. The GTX 980M features 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The R7 M260X has just 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 72.13 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 108.2 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part, against 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s for the AMD part. Floating-point performance tells the same story: the GTX 980M delivers 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R7 M260X manages only 549.1 GFLOPS—a 6.3x difference.

API support also diverges. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part's higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version indicate better forward compatibility with modern titles. Clock speeds further separate the pair: the GTX 980M runs at a base of 1038 MHz and boosts to 1127 MHz, while the R7 M260X sits at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. Memory clocks follow suit, with the GTX 980M using 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and the R7 M260X at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

# Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts across nearly every measurable field. Memory capacity is a major differentiator: the GTX 980M offers 8 GB of GDDR5, while the R7 M260X provides only 1 GB. Bus width also favors NVIDIA at 256-bit versus 128-bit, and memory bandwidth is 160.4 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s—a 2.5x advantage. Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor the GTX 980M by factors of 4x, 4x, and 8x respectively. Pixel rate and texture rate differences are even more pronounced, with the NVIDIA part delivering over 12x the pixel throughput and 6.3x the texture throughput. FP32 compute is 6.3x higher on the GTX 980M.

The two GPUs also differ in their bus interfaces. The GTX 980M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is described as an MXM Module, indicating a replaceable mobile graphics module. The R7 M260X uses PCIe 3.0 x8, a more conventional soldered or low-power mobile connection. Both use no power connectors and report no TDP, making direct power comparison impossible from the available data. Display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for both, meaning the laptop manufacturer determines connectivity.

Release timing shows a generational split. The GTX 980M was released on October 6, 2014, as part of the GeForce 900M generation, succeeding GeForce 800M and preceding GeForce 10 Mobile. The R7 M260X came later, on December 5, 2015, belonging to the Gem System (R7 M200) generation, with Solar System as its predecessor and Polaris Mobile as its successor. Both are now end-of-life products. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the data.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the superior GPU in every benchmark category measured. Its 318.8% lead in OpenCL and 282.3% lead in Vulkan are not marginal improvements—they represent a completely different performance class. The GTX 980M's larger memory pool (8 GB vs 1 GB), wider bus (256-bit vs 128-bit), and higher bandwidth (160.4 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s) compound its raw compute advantages. For applications that stress memory capacity or bandwidth—such as high-resolution texture loading or compute workloads with large datasets—the NVIDIA part will maintain its lead even where the shader count gap might suggest parity.

The R7 M260X, by contrast, occupies a different tier entirely. Its 384 shading units, 8 ROPs, and 549.1 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput place it firmly in entry-level territory. Its average benchmark score of 5,161 is only 2.8% below the GTX 980M's 5,308, but this aggregate masks the head-to-head reality: the AMD part loses both direct comparisons by margins exceeding 280%. The percentile rankings (31st vs 30th) are nearly identical, but that reflects the broad GPU landscape rather than any meaningful equivalence between these two specific parts.

A buyer or system integrator choosing between these two should base the decision on workload demands. For gaming, content creation, or GPU compute, the GTX 980M is the only rational choice, provided the laptop chassis can accommodate its MXM module form factor and the thermal/power envelope implies by its larger die. The R7 M260X might suffice for basic display output, lightweight productivity, or legacy applications, but its 1 GB memory and low pixel rate will bottleneck even modest modern workloads. The GTX 980M's higher DirectX 12 feature level (12_1 vs 11_1) and newer Vulkan support (1.4 vs 1.2.170) also make it the more future-proof option for software compatibility. The verdict is straightforward: the GTX 980M wins on every metric that matters, and the R7 M260X is only suitable for the most undemanding scenarios.