Radeon 760M vs R7 260X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260X and Radeon 760M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 260X
2013, $139
4 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
7.68

760M outperforms R7 260X by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking583446
Place by popularitynot in top-10089
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.21no data
Power efficiency5.1865.79
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameBonairePhoenix
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (12 years ago)31 January 2024 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$139 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores896512
Core clock speedno data800 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz2599 MHz
Number of transistors2,080 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate61.6083.17
Floating-point processing power1.971 TFLOPS5.323 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs5632
Ray Tracing Coresno data8
L0 Cacheno data128 KB
L1 Cache224 KB128 KB
L2 Cache256 KB2 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length170 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth104 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortMotherboard Dependent
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.1
Vulkan-1.3

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

R7 260X 7.68
Radeon 760M 12.70
+65.4%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R7 260X 3205
Samples: 5230
Radeon 760M 5303
+65.5%
Samples: 2702

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R7 260X 4380
Radeon 760M 6558
+49.7%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD16−1829
+81.3%
1440p10−1218
+80%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.69no data
1440p13.90no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 39 39
Counter-Strike 2 105 105
Cyberpunk 2077 30 30
Resident Evil 4 Remake 24 24

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 29 29
Battlefield 5 55−60 55−60
Counter-Strike 2 77 77
Cyberpunk 2077 24 24
Far Cry 5 38 38
Fortnite 70−75 70−75
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 55−60
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 45−50
Valorant 100−110 100−110

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 17 17
Battlefield 5 55−60 55−60
Counter-Strike 2 33 33
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190 180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 18 18
Dota 2 85−90 85−90
Far Cry 5 35 35
Fortnite 70−75 70−75
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 55−60
Grand Theft Auto V 36 36
Metro Exodus 27−30 27−30
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 45−50
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 38 38
Valorant 100−110 100−110

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60 55−60
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 27−30
Dota 2 85−90 85−90
Far Cry 5 33 33
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 55−60
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 45−50
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23 23
Valorant 100−110 100−110

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 70−75 70−75

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16 16
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100 95−100
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 18−20
Metro Exodus 14−16 14−16
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90 85−90
Valorant 120−130 120−130

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40 35−40
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 10−12
Far Cry 5 27−30 27−30
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 30−35
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20 18−20

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30 27−30

4K
High

Atomic Heart 10−11 10−11
Counter-Strike 2 9−10 9−10
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27 24−27
Metro Exodus 9−10 9−10
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 16−18
Valorant 60−65 60−65

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20 18−20
Counter-Strike 2 9−10 9−10
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 4−5
Dota 2 45−50 45−50
Far Cry 5 12−14 12−14
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 21−24
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 12−14

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14 12−14

This is how R7 260X and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 760M is 81% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 760M is 80% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.68 12.70
Recency 8 October 2013 31 January 2024
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 760M has a 65% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 86% more advanced lithography process, and 87% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260X in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 467 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 535 votes

Rate Radeon 760M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 260X or Radeon 760M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.