AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs from 2015, built on the same TSMC 28 nm process, yet the recorded data shows they occupy very different positions in the database. The M260X is a small Opal-based part from the Gem System (R7 M200) generation with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the M3000M is a Maxwell 2.0 professional part from the Quadro Maxwell-M line. What makes this pairing curious is that the head-to-head results are lopsided in one direction, yet the composite rankings tell a murkier story. Digging into the numbers reveals a case where raw compute power and aggregate scoring frameworks disagree.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests exist where both GPUs have recorded results, and the Quadro M3000M wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the M3000M scores 16646 against 5690 for the R7 M260X, a gap of 65.8 percent in the Quadro's favor. The Vulkan result is even more stark: 16668 versus 4631, a 72.2 percent advantage. In practical terms, the M3000M delivers roughly three times the compute throughput in both cross-platform GPGPU workloads, and the near-identical OpenCL and Vulkan scores for the Quadro (16646 and 16668) suggest a consistency the AMD part cannot approach. The R7 M260X loses 17.7 percent of its score moving from OpenCL to Vulkan, hinting at weaker driver support for the newer API.

Yet here is where the data becomes genuinely puzzling. The M3000M's average benchmark score across the database is 4621, while the R7 M260X sits at 5161, a higher composite figure for the GPU that lost every direct comparison by a wide margin. The explanation lies in what feeds each average. The M3000M's record includes a string of very low Passmark DirectX results (26, 42, 23, and 98), a G2D score of 402, and a G3D score of 5543, alongside its dominant Geekbench figures. Those small legacy-API numbers drag the mean down. The R7 M260X has only its two Geekbench entries, both weak but never catastrophically low.

The percentile fields compound the confusion. The R7 M260X ranks in the 30th percentile against all GPUs in the database; the M3000M ranks in the 27th. By composite positioning, they are near-peers. By direct measurement, they are not. Which lens you trust depends on whether you weight breadth of testing or like-for-like comparison, and the database records both without editorial preference.

Architecture Differences

Both chips come from TSMC on a 28 nm node, and transistor density is nearly identical: 12.3 million transistors per mm² for the AMD die versus 13.1 million per mm² for the NVIDIA die. Everything else about the silicon diverges sharply.

The R7 M260X uses the Opal chip under GCN 1.0, carrying 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. It fields 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The M3000M uses the much larger GM204 chip under Maxwell 2.0, with 5,200 million transistors spread across 398 mm², roughly five times the silicon area. Its resources scale accordingly: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, all two-and-two-thirds to four times the AMD configuration.

Clocks favor NVIDIA as well. The M260X runs a 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost; the M3000M runs 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. Memory is another landslide. Both use GDDR5, but the M260X pairs 1024 MB on a 128-bit bus at an effective 4 Gbps, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M3000M ships 4 GB on a 256-bit bus at an effective 5 Gbps, for 160.4 GB/s. That is two-and-a-half times the capacity and bandwidth.

Theoretical throughput follows. The Quadro posts 1.892 TFLOPS FP32, 29.57 GPixel/s of pixel fill, and 59.14 GTexel/s of texture fill. The Radeon manages 549.1 GFLOPS, 5.720 GPixel/s, and 17.16 GTexel/s. The bus interfaces differ too: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the AMD part, PCIe 3.0 x16 for the NVIDIA part. The M3000M is an MXM module with a stated 75 W TDP; the M260X has no recorded TDP and requires no power connectors.

Software support splits along generation lines. Both report DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the feature levels differ (11_1 for AMD, 12_1 for NVIDIA), and Vulkan support is older on the Radeon at version 1.2.170 versus 1.4 on the Quadro. Neither GPU has RT cores or tensor cores, as expected for Maxwell-era and GCN 1.0 hardware. Their lineage also diverges: the M260X succeeded the Solar System generation and gave way to Polaris Mobile, while the M3000M followed Quadro Kepler-M and was succeeded by Quadro Pascal-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in direct benchmark comparisons?

A: The Quadro M3000M, without contest. It won both shared tests, beating the R7 M260X by 65.8 percent in Geekbench OpenCL (16646 to 5690) and 72.2 percent in Geekbench Vulkan (16668 to 4631).

Q: Why does the R7 M260X have a higher average benchmark score if it loses every head-to-head test?

A: The averages draw on different test sets. The M3000M's mean of 4621 includes several very low Passmark DirectX and 2D scores, while the R7 M260X's mean of 5161 rests on only its two Geekbench results. The composite numbers are not like-for-like.

Q: How do the two compare against their own nearest rivals?

A: The R7 M260X's closest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (0.1 percent delta), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (1 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (1.4 percent), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (1.9 percent). The M3000M's rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (0.1 percent), the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and RX 9060 XT 16 GB (0.8 percent each), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (1 percent).

Q: How much more memory does the Quadro M3000M have?

A: Four times as much: 4 GB of GDDR5 versus 1024 MB, on a wider 256-bit bus delivering 160.4 GB/s against 64.00 GB/s.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API versions?

A: No. Both list DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the M260X caps at feature level 11_1 with Vulkan 1.2.170, while the M3000M reaches feature level 12_1 with Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Are either of these still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life. The M3000M was released in August 2015 and the M260X in December 2015.

The Verdict

Strictly from the recorded data, the Quadro M3000M is the stronger graphics processor. Every shared benchmark, every theoretical throughput metric, and every memory figure favors it: triple the Geekbench performance, roughly three-and-a-half times the FP32 compute, four times the ROP count, and quadruple the video memory. For any workload captured in this database, GPGPU compute in particular, the M3000M is the clear pick.

The counterargument is the composite ranking, where the R7 M260X's 5161 average and 30th percentile edge out the M3000M's 4621 and 27th percentile. But that edge is an artifact of uneven test coverage, not a genuine performance signal, and the head-to-head record (two wins for NVIDIA, zero for AMD) is the cleaner comparison. The data implies that if you weight direct measurements, the Quadro is far ahead; if you weight database averages, they look like peers. The direct measurements are the more trustworthy signal here, because they hold the workload constant.

Neither card belongs in a modern context by percentile, both sitting below the 31st percentile against all GPUs. Between the two, though, the M3000M is the one the benchmarks actually favor.

Specification Differences

• Chip: Opal (M260X) vs GM204 (M3000M)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: Gem System (R7 M200) vs Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)
• Transistors: 950 million vs 5,200 million
• Die size: 77 mm² vs 398 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.3M/mm² vs 13.1M/mm²
• Base clock: 620 MHz vs 823 MHz
• Boost clock: 715 MHz vs 924 MHz
• Memory clock: 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) vs 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 1024 MB vs 4 GB
• Bus width: 128 bit vs 256 bit
• Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s vs 160.4 GB/s
• Shading units: 384 vs 1024
• TMUs: 24 vs 64
• ROPs: 8 vs 32
• Pixel rate: 5.720 GPixel/s vs 29.57 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 17.16 GTexel/s vs 59.14 GTexel/s
• FP32: 549.1 GFLOPS vs 1.892 TFLOPS
• TDP: not recorded vs 75 W
• Slot width: not recorded vs MXM Module
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Release date: December 2015 vs August 2015
• Predecessor: Solar System vs Quadro Kepler-M
• Successor: Polaris Mobile vs Quadro Pascal-M

Where Each One Wins

The honest answer from this dataset: the Quadro M3000M wins everywhere the two cards were measured against each other. Geekbench OpenCL went to NVIDIA by 65.8 percent; Geekbench Vulkan went to NVIDIA by 72.2 percent. There is no recorded workload, compute or graphics, where the R7 M260X came out ahead.

Where the M260X "wins" is in the database's composite view. Its 5161 average score beats the M3000M's 4621, its 30th percentile edges the Quadro's 27th, and its rival cluster (Quadro K3100M, Quadro 4000M, GeForce GTX 760M, Radeon R7 240) sits in a similar performance neighborhood to the Quadro's rivals. If a user is sorting purely by aggregate score rather than head-to-head results, the AMD part appears competitive. That appearance, however, rests on the M3000M being penalized by low legacy Passmark DirectX entries rather than by losing to the M260X directly.

So the split is straightforward: for actual GPU compute, for fill-rate-heavy graphics work, for memory-hungry tasks needing more than 1024 MB, and for newer API feature levels, the M3000M is the only recorded choice. The R7 M260X's case is statistical, not measurable, and the data invites skepticism about whether that case would survive broader testing.