Arc A750 vs Radeon R7 M260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 M260 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.
Arc A750 outperforms R7 M260 by a whopping 2296% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1071 | 213 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | 53.90 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 9.95 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Topaz | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 June 2014 (11 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Arc A750 has 179567% better value for money than R7 M260.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 3584 |
| Compute units | 6 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 940 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 23.52 | 537.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7526 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 112 |
| TMUs | 24 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 448 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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 HD | 13
−723%
| 107
+723%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−2950%
| 61
+2950%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−3500%
| 36
+3500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 61.46
−2176%
| 2.70
+2176%
|
| 1440p | 399.50
−8332%
| 4.74
+8332%
|
| 4K | 799.00
−9853%
| 8.03
+9853%
|
- Arc A750 has 2176% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc A750 has 8332% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc A750 has 9853% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75
+3650%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−11200%
|
110−120
+11200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3200%
|
66
+3200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5450%
|
111
+5450%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−4533%
|
130−140
+4533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1500%
|
112
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 132 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1244%
|
120−130
+1244%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−500%
|
190−200
+500%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−11200%
|
110−120
+11200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−848%
|
270−280
+848%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2800%
|
58
+2800%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−2253%
|
400−450
+2253%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5000%
|
102
+5000%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−4533%
|
130−140
+4533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1414%
|
106
+1414%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 121 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−9800%
|
99
+9800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−5150%
|
105
+5150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1244%
|
120−130
+1244%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
−4525%
|
185
+4525%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−500%
|
190−200
+500%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−11200%
|
110−120
+11200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55
+2650%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−2253%
|
400−450
+2253%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4800%
|
98
+4800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1186%
|
90
+1186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1244%
|
120−130
+1244%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−2200%
|
69
+2200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−500%
|
190−200
+500%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−4533%
|
130−140
+4533%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−8800%
|
89
+8800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−2538%
|
210−220
+2538%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1246%
|
170−180
+1246%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−4480%
|
220−230
+4480%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 42 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 76 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2533%
|
79
+2533%
|
| HELLDIVERS 2 | 1−2
−6000%
|
61
+6000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−5600%
|
57
+5600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3700%
|
75−80
+3700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−181%
|
45
+181%
|
| HELLDIVERS 2 | 3−4
−333%
|
13
+333%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−2933%
|
180−190
+2933%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| HELLDIVERS 2 | 3−4
−967%
|
32
+967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1700%
|
35−40
+1700%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 336
+0%
|
336
+0%
|
| HELLDIVERS 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270
+0%
|
270
+0%
|
| HELLDIVERS 2 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
| HELLDIVERS 2 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| HELLDIVERS 2 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
This is how R7 M260 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:
- Arc A750 is 723% faster in 1080p
- Arc A750 is 2950% faster in 1440p
- Arc A750 is 3500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A750 is 11200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A750 is ahead in 41 tests (69%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (31%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.23 | 29.47 |
| Recency | 11 June 2014 | 12 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
Arc A750 has a 2295.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 M260 is a notebook graphics card while Arc A750 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
