R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs R7 M260X

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

R7 M260X
2.56

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 M260X by 6% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking782763
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN (2011−2017)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameMarsKaveri Spectre
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date7 January 2014 (10 years old)14 January 2014 (10 years old)

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores384384
Compute units6no data
Core clock speed715 MHz720 MHz
Boost clock speed715 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Texture fill rate17.16no data
Floating-point performance549.1 gflopsno data

Size and compatibility

Information on Radeon R7 M260X and Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x8no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

Memory

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1000 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth64 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

Technologies

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

AppAcceleration-no data
Enduro-no data
FreeSync1no data
HD3D+no data
PowerTune+no data
DualGraphics1no data
TrueAudio-no data
ZeroCore+no data
Switchable graphics1no data

API support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.3no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Mantle+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R7 M260X 2.56
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 2.72
+6.3%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 M260X by 6% in our combined benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R7 M260X 7640
+4.1%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 7338

R7 M260X outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 4% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R7 M260X 1903
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1988
+4.4%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 M260X by 4% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R7 M260X 1396
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1406
+0.7%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 M260X by 1% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R7 M260X 9034
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 9651
+6.8%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 M260X by 7% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

R7 M260X 98071
+9%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 89954

R7 M260X outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 9% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

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 HD15
+7.1%
14
−7.1%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how R7 M260X and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • R7 M260X is 7.1% faster than R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 50% faster than the R7 M260X.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 17 tests (32%)
  • there's a draw in 36 tests (68%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 2.56 2.72

We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 M260X and Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop). The differences in performance seem too small.

Be aware that Radeon R7 M260X is a notebook card while Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 M260X
Radeon R7 M260X
AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.5 21 vote

Rate AMD Radeon R7 M260X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 20 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.