AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head matchups evenly, each taking one of the two recorded benchmark workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690 against 4249 for the NVIDIA Quadro P400, a decisive 33.9% advantage for AMD. That is not a marginal edge; it is a substantial lead in raw compute throughput in this particular API test. For contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro P400’s closest rival in the database, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, sits at an average score of 4657, which is only 0.6% behind the P400, so the P400 is already near the bottom of its peer group. The R7 M260X, meanwhile, posts a 1.9% lead over the AMD Radeon R7 240 in its nearest-rival list, and a 0.1% edge over the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, showing that its OpenCL dominance over the P400 is an outlier relative to its usual standing.

The tables turn in Geekbench Vulkan, where the NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 5119 versus 4631 for the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. That gives NVIDIA a 9.5% win, a meaningful reversal but nowhere near the magnitude of AMD’s OpenCL blowout. The P400’s Vulkan result is actually its stronger showing; its OpenCL score of 4249 drags down its average. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X, by contrast, shows the opposite pattern: its OpenCL score is far higher than its Vulkan score, suggesting that its architecture is more comfortable with the older API workload. Averaging the two tests, the AMD card lands at 5161 points, while the NVIDIA card averages 4684 points, a gap of roughly 10% in favor of AMD. The percentile data reinforces this: the R7 M260X sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro P400 sits at the 27th percentile. Neither card is a high-flyer, but the AMD part holds a consistent, if modest, overall edge in the recorded metrics.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing generations and foundries. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the Opal chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. That process gap is significant: the P400 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0M per mm², while the R7 M260X contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is therefore both physically larger and far denser, a direct consequence of the newer 14 nm node versus the older 28 nm node.

The AMD card relies on a wider memory bus and more raw memory bandwidth. It has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus, but only achieves 32.06 GB/s. That is half the bandwidth of the AMD part, despite having double the capacity. The R7 M260X also has more shading units (384 versus 256), more texture mapping units (24 versus 16), but fewer render output units (8 versus 16). The pixel rate tells the story: the P400 outputs 20.03 GPixel/s, while the R7 M260X manages only 5.720 GPixel/s, a 3.5x advantage for NVIDIA. Texture rate is closer: 20.03 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 17.16 GTexel/s for AMD. In FP32 compute, the NVIDIA card leads with 641.0 GFLOPS against 549.1 GFLOPS for AMD, a 17% gap. The P400 also lists a token FP16 figure of 10.02 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the R7 M260X has no recorded FP16 capability.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The NVIDIA card runs at a base of 1228 MHz and boosts to 1252 MHz, while the AMD card sits at a base of 620 MHz and boosts to 715 MHz. Even with fewer shaders, the NVIDIA card’s higher clocks help it overcome the AMD card’s wider memory interface in several metrics. The memory clocks are effectively the same: both run GDDR5 at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective throughput. The P400 is a single-slot card measuring 150 mm by 69 mm, powered entirely through the PCIe slot with no additional power connectors, and it carries a 30 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The R7 M260X has no listed TDP or physical dimensions, and its display outputs are described as portable-device dependent, indicating it is primarily a laptop part.

API support differs as well. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer Pascal architecture gives the P400 a more complete DirectX 12 feature set and a more recent Vulkan revision. The R7 M260X is from the Gem System generation (R7 M200), released in December 2015, while the P400 is from the Quadro Pascal generation (Px000), released in February 2017. Both are end-of-life products, with the AMD card succeeding the Solar System and preceding Polaris Mobile, and the NVIDIA card succeeding Quadro Maxwell and preceding Quadro Volta.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins the OpenCL benchmark by a 33.9% margin, which is its headline result. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins the Vulkan benchmark by 9.5%, but loses the average-score comparison by about 10% overall. The R7 M260X also holds a higher percentile rank (30th versus 27th). For anyone running OpenCL-heavy workloads, the AMD card is the obvious choice from these numbers. For Vulkan-based tasks, the NVIDIA card is preferable, but its advantage is far slimmer than AMD’s OpenCL lead.

The P400 does have structural advantages that matter beyond the raw scores. It has double the VRAM (2 GB versus 1 GB), a much higher pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s), a higher FP32 throughput (641.0 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS), and a newer API profile. It also runs at far higher clocks and consumes a modest 30 W with a single-slot design. The R7 M260X counters with double the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s) and more shading units (384 versus 256). The benchmark outcomes suggest that the AMD card’s wider memory bus and higher shader count drive its OpenCL success, while the NVIDIA card’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture drive its Vulkan result.

There is no universal winner. The R7 M260X is the better choice for OpenCL compute as recorded in the database. The P400 is the better choice for Vulkan workloads, and it also offers more VRAM and superior pixel throughput for display-heavy tasks. The average benchmark score favors AMD, but the P400’s architectural advantages in specific rasterization and API features cannot be ignored. Neither card is remotely competitive with modern parts, as both sit below the 30th percentile of all GPUs. The verdict is workload-dependent, with AMD leading in one API and NVIDIA leading in the other, and the final decision should rest on which API the user’s software actually exercises.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has an average benchmark score of 5161, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 has an average of 4684, giving AMD a lead of roughly 10%.

Q: How much faster is the AMD card in OpenCL?

A: The R7 M260X scores 5690 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4249 for the Quadro P400, which is a 33.9% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Quadro P400 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 5119 against 4631 for the AMD card, a 9.5% margin.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The AMD R7 M260X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD R7 M260X has 384 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 has 256 shading units.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, while the AMD R7 M260X uses 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins in OpenCL compute. Its score of 5690 is not just higher than the Quadro P400’s 4249; it is 33.9% higher, the single largest margin in any head-to-head test. The card also wins on memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s), shading units (384 versus 256), and texture mapping units (24 versus 16). It holds the 30th percentile ranking versus the P400’s 27th, and its average benchmark score of 5161 exceeds the P400’s 4684. For any application that leverages OpenCL, the database clearly favors the AMD part. Its wider memory bus and higher shader count appear to drive that result.

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins in Vulkan, scoring 5119 versus 4631, a 9.5% margin that is the card’s only head-to-head victory. It also wins on raw compute metrics: FP32 at 641.0 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS, pixel rate at 20.03 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 20.03 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. It has double the VRAM (2 GB versus 1 GB), a newer DirectX 12 feature level (12_1 versus 11_1), and a newer Vulkan revision (1.4 versus 1.2.170). Its process node is smaller (14 nm versus 28 nm), and it packs over three times the transistors. The P400 is also a physically defined product: single-slot, 150 mm long, 69 mm tall, with a 30 W TDP and three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The R7 M260X has no listed dimensions or power draw and relies on portable-device-dependent outputs.

For rendering tasks that favor pixel throughput, the P400 is the pick. For OpenCL compute tasks, the R7 M260X is the pick. The two cards are complementary rather than competitive in a single workload. A user with a Vulkan-based renderer should choose NVIDIA; a user with an OpenCL-based compute workload should choose AMD. The data does not support a single recommendation, only a workload-specific one.