AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the NVIDIA RTX A400 and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22,844 while the R7 M260X manages 5,690, a delta of 301.5% in favor of the NVIDIA part. That is not a marginal improvement; the RTX A400 delivers more than four times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The Geekbench Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the RTX A400 posts 22,237 against the R7 M260X's 4,631, a 380.2% advantage. In Vulkan, the NVIDIA card is roughly 4.8 times faster, which reflects not only a generational leap in architecture but also the fact that the R7 M260X's GCN 1.0 design predates modern API optimizations.

The RTX A400 wins both head-to-head tests, with a 2-0 record. However, the absence of additional shared benchmarks limits the comparison to compute and graphics API workloads. The R7 M260X has no recorded Passmark scores in the database, so the analysis relies entirely on Geekbench data. Still, the pattern is unambiguous: the RTX A400 is categorically faster in every measured category.

Contextualizing the RTX A400 against its own nearest rivals helps clarify where it sits. Its average benchmark score is 6,078, placing it within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049) and statistically tied with the GeForce MX230 (6,077, delta 0%). It trails the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 by 0.6% (that chip scores 6,117) and leads the AMD Radeon 760M by 1% (6,019). The RTX A400 occupies a narrow performance band, but the head-to-head results show it far above the R7 M260X, which averages 5,161 overall. For the R7 M260X, the closest rivals are the Quadro K3100M (5,154, +0.1%), the Quadro 4000M (5,211, -1%), and the GeForce GTX 760M (5,236, -1.4%). The R7 M260X also edges the Radeon R7 240 by 1.9%. This context shows that the R7 M260X was a mid-range mobile part in its era, while the RTX A400 is a modern workstation card with a much higher ceiling.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for any workload requiring compute or modern graphics API performance: the NVIDIA RTX A400. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 301.5%, and in Vulkan by 380.2%. These are not close results. The RTX A400 also carries features the R7 M260X lacks entirely, including ray tracing cores (6) and tensor cores (24), which make it suitable for accelerated workloads beyond traditional rasterization. The R7 M260X, with no such dedicated hardware, cannot compete in those domains.

The R7 M260X is an end-of-life product from 2015, built on a 28 nm process with 950 million transistors and a 77 mm² die. The RTX A400 is an active product from 2024, built on an 8 nm Samsung process with 8,700 million transistors and a 200 mm² die. The transistor count difference is nearly 9x, and the die size difference is over 2.5x. The RTX A400 also has double the shading units (768 vs. 384), three times the ROPs (16 vs. 8), and equal TMUs (24 each). Its memory bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s over a 64-bit GDDR6 interface, compared to 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR5 interface on the R7 M260X. The RTX A400's 4 GB frame buffer is four times the R7 M260X's 1 GB, which alone would disqualify the older card for modern workloads.

Who should pick the RTX A400? Anyone running Vulkan or OpenCL compute tasks, any workstation user needing 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, and any professional who requires ray tracing or tensor core acceleration. The RTX A400 also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, whereas the R7 M260X is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8. Who should pick the R7 M260X? The data offers no compelling reason, except for legacy system compatibility where the 2015-era part is the only option. Its single benchmark win count is zero, and its average score is 5,161 versus 6,078 for the RTX A400, a gap of roughly 17.8%. The R7 M260X's only advantage is its smaller die and lower transistor count, which historically implies lower power draw, but no TDP figure is recorded for the AMD part, so that cannot be quantified.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A400 than the AMD Radeon R7 M260X in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,844 versus 5,690, a 301.5% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,237 versus 4,631, a 380.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260X support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The database lists no RT cores or tensor cores for the R7 M260X. The RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards have?

A: The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M260X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6,078, while the R7 M260X averages 5,161. The RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs; the R7 M260X sits at the 30th percentile.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The RTX A400 is listed as Active, released April 2024. The R7 M260X is End-of-life, released December 2015.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA RTX A400 | AMD Radeon R7 M260X |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Process node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 950 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor density | 43.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1417 MHz | 620 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1762 MHz | 715 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 768 | 384 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| RT cores | 6 | None |

| Tensor cores | 24 | None |

| Pixel rate | 28.19 GPixel/s | 5.720 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 42.29 GTexel/s | 17.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.706 TFLOPS | 549.1 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 50 W | Not listed |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Not listed |

| Power connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 163 mm length, 69 mm height | Not listed |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2024-04-15 | 2015-12-05 |

Architecture Differences

The RTX A400 is built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, specifically the GA107 chip, part of the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. It uses an 8 nm Samsung process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 43.5M / mm². The R7 M260X uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on the Opal chip, part of the Gem System (R7 M200) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm TSMC process with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 12.3M / mm².

The architectural gap is vast. The RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores for ray tracing and 24 tensor cores for AI acceleration, neither of which exist on the R7 M260X. The NVIDIA card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD card is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Vulkan support is newer on the RTX A400 (1.4) versus the R7 M260X (1.2.170). The RTX A400's FP32 throughput is 2.706 TFLOPS, roughly 4.9 times the R7 M260X's 549.1 GFLOPS. Its FP16 output is identical to FP32 at 2.706 TFLOPS, a 1:1 ratio, whereas no FP16 figure is recorded for the AMD part. The pixel rate for the RTX A400 is 28.19 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 42.29 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M260X has 1 GB of GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s. Despite the narrower 64-bit bus on the NVIDIA card, higher memory clock speed (12 Gbps effective) compensates, delivering 50% more bandwidth than the AMD part's 128-bit interface. The RTX A400 also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, doubling the per-lane bandwidth available to the R7 M260X's PCIe 3.0 x8. The NVIDIA card is a single-slot, 163 mm long, 69 mm tall unit with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and no power connectors, drawing 50 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU. The AMD card's dimensions, TDP, and slot width are not listed, and its display outputs are described as portable device dependent, indicating a mobile-oriented design. The RTX A400 succeeds the Quadro Turing line and precedes Workstation Ada, while the R7 M260X succeeds the Solar System generation and precedes Polaris Mobile. These architectural differences explain the benchmark results: the RTX A400 is a modern, compute-capable workstation GPU, while the R7 M260X is a legacy mobile part from the GCN era.