
Radeon R9 M470X vs Radeon R7 260X

Radeon R9 M470X
Popular choices:

Radeon R7 260X
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. The Radeon R9 M470X is positioned at rank #377 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R9 M470X
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 M470X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.4% 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 Radeon R7 260X.
| Insight | Radeon R9 M470X | Radeon R7 260X |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R7 260X offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R7 260X holds the technical lead. Priced at $150 (vs $350), it costs 57% less, resulting in a 130% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 M470X | Radeon R7 260X |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+130%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($350) | ✅More affordable ($150) |
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 R9 M470X and Radeon R7 260X

Radeon R9 M470X
The Radeon R9 M470X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 15 2016. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1100 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,244 points.

Radeon R7 260X
The Radeon R7 260X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 8 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 115W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,198 points. Launch price was $139.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 M470X scores 3,244 and the Radeon R7 260X reaches 3,198 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 M470X is built on GCN 2.0 while the Radeon R7 260X uses GCN 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 896 (Radeon R9 M470X) vs 896 (Radeon R7 260X). Raw compute: 1.971 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M470X) vs 1.971 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 260X). Boost clocks: 1100 MHz vs 1000 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M470X | Radeon R7 260X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,244+1% | 3,198 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.971 TFLOPS | 1.971 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz+10% | 1000 MHz |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | 224 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 M470X | Radeon R7 260X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R9 M470X comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 260X has 2 GB. The Radeon R9 M470X offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M470X | Radeon R7 260X |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | 104 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 M470X draws 75W versus the Radeon R7 260X's 115W — a 42.1% difference. The Radeon R9 M470X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R9 M470X) vs 500W (Radeon R7 260X). Power connectors: Mobile vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M470X | Radeon R7 260X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-35% | 115W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | — | 170mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80 |
| Perf/Watt | 43.3+56% | 27.8 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 M470X launched at $350 MSRP and currently averages $350, while the Radeon R7 260X launched at $139 and now averages $150. The Radeon R7 260X costs 57.1% less ($200 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.3 (Radeon R9 M470X) vs 21.3 (Radeon R7 260X) — the Radeon R7 260X offers 129% better value. The Radeon R9 M470X is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2013).
| Feature | Radeon R9 M470X | Radeon R7 260X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $350 | $139-60% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $350 | $150-57% |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.3 | 21.3+129% |
| Codename | Emerald | Bonaire |
| Release | May 15 2016 | October 8 2013 |
| Ranking | #563 | #568 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















