UHD Graphics vs Radeon R7 M260

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 M260 and UHD Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 M260
2014
4 GB DDR3
1.30

UHD Graphics outperforms R7 M260 by a whopping 329% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1030602
Place by popularitynot in top-1007
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.03no data
Power efficiencyno data38.91
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Generation 11.0 (2019−2021)
GPU code nameTopazJasper Lake GT1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date11 June 2014 (10 years ago)11 January 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$799 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores384256
Compute units6no data
Core clock speed940 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speed980 MHz750 MHz
Number of transistors1,550 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm+
Power consumption (TDP)no data10 Watt
Texture fill rate23.5212.00
Floating-point processing power0.7526 TFLOPS0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2416

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x8no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8Ring Bus
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

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 compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.34.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan-1.2
Mantle+-

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. 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 M260 1.30
UHD Graphics 5.58
+329%

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 M260 502
UHD Graphics 2151
+328%

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 HD13
−323%
55−60
+323%

Cost per frame, $

1080p61.46no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−329%
60−65
+329%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−324%
140−150
+324%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−329%
60−65
+329%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−309%
45−50
+309%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−324%
140−150
+324%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−329%
60−65
+329%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
−300%
12−14
+300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−324%
140−150
+324%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Hitman 3 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%

This is how R7 M260 and UHD Graphics compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics is 323% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.30 5.58
Recency 11 June 2014 11 January 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm

UHD Graphics has a 329.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The UHD Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260 in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

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


AMD Radeon R7 M260
Radeon R7 M260
Intel UHD Graphics
UHD Graphics

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.1 224 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 6107 votes

Rate UHD Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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