Radeon R7 M260X vs Quadro 3000M
Radeon R7 M260X
Popular choices:
Quadro 3000M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Radeon R7 M260X is positioned at rank 410 and the Quadro 3000M is on rank 120, so the Quadro 3000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R7 M260X
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 3000M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R7 M260X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.2% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro 3000M.
| Insight | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro 3000M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon R7 M260X remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R7 M260X and Quadro 3000M
Radeon R7 M260X
The Radeon R7 M260X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 6 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 620 MHz to 715 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,013 points.
Quadro 3000M
The Quadro 3000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 22 2011. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 450 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,001 points. Launch price was $398.96.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R7 M260X scores 1,013 and the Quadro 3000M reaches 1,001 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R7 M260X is built on GCN 1.0 while the Quadro 3000M uses Fermi, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 240 (Quadro 3000M). Raw compute: 0.5491 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 0.432 TFLOPS (Quadro 3000M).
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro 3000M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,013+1% | 1,001 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 384+60% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5491 TFLOPS+27% | 0.432 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 40+67% |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 320 KB+233% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro 3000M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R7 M260X comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro 3000M has 2 GB. The Radeon R7 M260X offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 512 KB (Quadro 3000M) — the Quadro 3000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro 3000M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R7 M260X draws 75W versus the Quadro 3000M's 75W — a 0% difference. The Quadro 3000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 350W (Quadro 3000M). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro 3000M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 85 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 13.5+2% | 13.3 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R7 M260X is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro 3000M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $139 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $35 | — |
| Codename | Opal | GF104 |
| Release | December 6 2015 | February 22 2011 |
| Ranking | #878 | #888 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R7 M260X and Quadro 3000M
