AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 and AMD Radeon R9 M265X represent two very different interpretations of the mobile and desktop GPU landscape, separated by nearly a year in release timing. The GTX 760 is a desktop part from 2013, while the R9 M265X is a mobile chip from 2014. The data shows a clear overall performance gap, with the GTX 760 holding a substantial lead in the one benchmark where both were measured, but the comparison reveals more nuance regarding architectural efficiency and API support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 scores 11,299 points, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8,851 points. This translates to a 27.7% advantage for the GTX 760. That is not a marginal victory; it is a commanding lead that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their similar average benchmark scores relative to other GPUs.

Looking at the broader percentile rankings, the GTX 760 sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M265X sits at the 44th percentile. Despite the large head-to-head delta, both cards cluster near the middle of the overall distribution. The GTX 760’s average benchmark score of 9,458 is 607 points higher than the R9 M265X’s average of 8,851. In context, the GTX 760’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK with an average score of 9,474, a negligible 0.2% difference. The R9 M265X, meanwhile, sits within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863) and within 0.8% of the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918). This indicates that while the GTX 760 wins the direct matchup, the R9 M265X is not far off from other similarly positioned GPUs in its own peer group.

The GTX 760 also has benchmark data for Geekbench Metal (4,524) and Geekbench Vulkan (12,551), but the R9 M265X has no corresponding results, so no direct comparison is possible on those APIs. The absence of data is itself informative; it suggests the R9 M265X was not commonly tested under those compute workloads, likely due to its mobile-oriented design and limited driver exposure. The GTX 760’s Vulkan score of 12,551 is notably higher than its OpenCL score of 11,299, indicating the architecture responds well to modern API translation layers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 has an average benchmark score of 9,458, compared to 8,851 for the AMD Radeon R9 M265X. The GTX 760 also holds a 27.7% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 11,299 versus 8,851.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 760 offers 192.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the R9 M265X offers 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 760 uses a 256-bit memory bus, whereas the R9 M265X uses a 128-bit bus, and both use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes of each GPU?

A: The GTX 760 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the R9 M265X has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical: 12.0M / mm² for the GTX 760 and 12.2M / mm² for the R9 M265X.

Q: Which GPU has a higher clock speed?

A: The GTX 760 has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1,032 MHz. The R9 M265X has a base clock of 575 MHz and a boost clock of 625 MHz. The GTX 760’s clocks are significantly higher.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but with different feature levels. The GTX 760 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both also support OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan versions of 1.2.175 and 1.2.170 respectively.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 760 has a pixel rate of 24.77 GPixel/s, while the R9 M265X has a pixel rate of 10.00 GPixel/s. The GTX 760 also has a texture rate of 99.07 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s for the R9 M265X.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures are fundamentally different. The GTX 760 is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip, while the R9 M265X uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor density is nearly equal: 12.0M / mm² for the GTX 760 and 12.2M / mm² for the R9 M265X. The die size diverges significantly: the GK104 measures 294 mm², while the Venus die is only 123 mm². This reflects the desktop versus mobile design philosophy.

The GTX 760 contains 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M265X contains 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 760’s compute throughput is 2.378 TFLOPS, while the R9 M265X delivers 800.0 GFLOPS. The GTX 760 achieves a pixel rate of 24.77 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 99.07 GTexel/s, compared to 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s for the R9 M265X. The GTX 760 also has a higher memory clock: 1,502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, versus 1,000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective for the R9 M265X.

The GTX 760 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a minor difference. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs slightly: 1.2.175 for the GTX 760 and 1.2.170 for the R9 M265X. The GTX 760 is a dual-slot card with 2x 6-pin power connectors, while the R9 M265X has no listed slot width or power connector specifications, typical of a mobile part. The GTX 760’s TDP is 170 W, while the R9 M265X has no listed TDP.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 760 has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1,032 MHz, while the R9 M265X operates at 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. Memory configuration: both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the bus width differs at 256-bit versus 128-bit, yielding bandwidths of 192.3 GB/s and 64.00 GB/s respectively. The GTX 760’s memory runs at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the R9 M265X runs at 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the GTX 760: 1,152 shading units versus 640, 96 TMUs versus 40, and 32 ROPs versus 16. The GTX 760 offers 2.378 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R9 M265X offers 800.0 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is 24.77 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 99.07 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s. The GTX 760 is a dual-slot card with 2x 6-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 450 W; the R9 M265X has no listed power requirements. The GTX 760 has a length of 241 mm (9.5 inches), while the R9 M265X has no listed dimensions. The GTX 760 has display outputs of 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the R9 M265X has none listed.

The GTX 760 was released on 2013-06-24, while the R9 M265X followed on 2014-03-20. The GTX 760 has a launch MSRP of 249 USD; the R9 M265X has no launch MSRP listed. The GTX 760’s production status is end-of-life, as is the R9 M265X. The GTX 760’s predecessor is GeForce 600 and successor is GeForce 900, while the R9 M265X’s predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile. The GTX 760 has a transistor count of 3,540 million, versus 1,500 million for the R9 M265X.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760 wins decisively in raw performance. In the only direct head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 27.7%. This advantage stems from its higher clock speeds, wider memory bus, and nearly double the shading units. The GTX 760 also offers significantly higher pixel and texture rates, making it the clear choice for any workload that is fill-rate or compute-bound. Its 2.378 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput is nearly three times the R9 M265X’s 800.0 GFLOPS. For desktop users with a 450 W PSU and dual-slot space, the GTX 760 is the stronger performer.

The R9 M265X, while losing the performance comparison, has its own advantages. It is a mobile part with no listed TDP, slot width, or power connectors, indicating it is designed for laptop integration where power efficiency and thermal constraints are paramount. Its smaller die (123 mm² versus 294 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,500 million versus 3,540 million) suggest it draws far less power, even though no TDP figure is provided. The R9 M265X also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the GTX 760’s DirectX 12 (11_0), a slight edge for newer API feature levels. Its Vulkan version is marginally lower (1.2.170 versus 1.2.175), but the difference is negligible.

The GTX 760 wins in every compute benchmark metric available: OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan. The R9 M265X has no corresponding Metal or Vulkan scores, so the GTX 760 is the only one of the two with verified performance across multiple modern APIs. The GTX 760’s percentile ranking of 46 versus 44 for the R9 M265X reinforces that while both are mid-tier GPUs, the GTX 760 sits slightly higher in the overall distribution.

In summary, the GTX 760 is the superior performer for desktop workloads requiring high fill rates, memory bandwidth, and compute throughput. The R9 M265X is a more compact, likely lower-power mobile solution that trades performance for integration ease. The data shows no scenario where the R9 M265X outperforms the GTX 760 in benchmarks, but its design goals are clearly different, prioritizing mobility over absolute speed.