AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs AMD Radeon R9 M375
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 M260X and AMD Radeon R9 M375 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 M260X
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 month(s) later
- Around 2% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 988 vs 973
- Around 50% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3158 vs 2112
- Around 50% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3158 vs 2112
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 6 December 2015 vs 5 May 2015 |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 988 vs 973 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3158 vs 2112 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3158 vs 2112 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M375
- Around 61% higher core clock speed: 1000 MHz vs 620 MHz
- Around 42% higher boost clock speed: 1015 MHz vs 715 MHz
- 2.4x more texture fill rate: 40.6 GTexel / s vs 17.16 GTexel / s
- Around 67% higher pipelines: 640 vs 384
- 2.4x better floating-point performance: 1,299 gflops vs 549.1 gflops
- Around 10% higher memory clock speed: 1100 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- Around 78% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10235 vs 5753
- Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2227 vs 1893
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1850 vs 1775
- Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2227 vs 1893
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1850 vs 1775
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1000 MHz vs 620 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1015 MHz vs 715 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 40.6 GTexel / s vs 17.16 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 640 vs 384 |
Floating-point performance | 1,299 gflops vs 549.1 gflops |
Memory clock speed | 1100 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10235 vs 5753 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2227 vs 1893 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1850 vs 1775 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2227 vs 1893 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1850 vs 1775 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M260X
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M375
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R7 M260X | AMD Radeon R9 M375 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 988 | 973 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 161 | 161 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5753 | 10235 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1893 | 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1775 | 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3158 | 2112 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1893 | 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1775 | 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3158 | 2112 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 29.048 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 272.547 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.024 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.994 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 142.872 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R7 M260X | AMD Radeon R9 M375 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
Code name | Opal | Tropo |
Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series |
Launch date | 6 December 2015 | 5 May 2015 |
Place in performance rating | 1230 | 1231 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 715 MHz | 1015 MHz |
Compute units | 6 | 10 |
Core clock speed | 620 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 549.1 gflops | 1,299 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 640 |
Texture fill rate | 17.16 GTexel / s | 40.6 GTexel / s |
Transistor count | 1,040 million | 1,500 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | 2.0 | Not Listed |
OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.4 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 28.8 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 bit | 128 bit |
Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1100 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PCIe 3.0 | ||
PowerTune | ||
Switchable graphics | ||
Zero Core | ||
ZeroCore | ||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
Enduro |