AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison between the AMD FirePro M4000 and the AMD Radeon R7 M360, and it is a decisive win for the older professional part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro M4000 scores 5537 against the R7 M360's 4638, a lead of 19.4%. That is not a marginal edge; it is a substantial gap that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their similar naming conventions.

The FirePro M4000's 5537 OpenCL score puts it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (0.7% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (1% behind). The only listed competitor ahead of it is the NVIDIA Quadro M500M at 5604, which beats it by 1.2%. This clustering shows the FirePro M4000 sits in a tightly packed band of mobile GPUs from several generations, and its performance is essentially at parity with the GeForce MX130 and GTX 765M.

The R7 M360, by contrast, scores 4638 in OpenCL and lands in the 29th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M265 at 4929 (effectively 0% delta), the AMD FirePro W5130M at 4904 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 at 4893 (0.8% behind). Interestingly, the database also lists the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901 as a rival, though that comparison is likely a data artifact given the generational gulf; the delta is listed at 0.6%. The R7 M360's average benchmark score across both of its recorded tests is 4931, which is lower than the FirePro M4000's single-test average of 5537.

The R7 M360 does have one unique data point in its favor: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5223. The FirePro M4000 has no recorded Vulkan score in the database, so there is no direct head-to-head comparison available for that API. This means the FirePro's OpenCL dominance cannot be extrapolated to Vulkan workloads; the R7 M360 demonstrates it can execute Vulkan compute tasks at a reasonably high level, though without a comparable FirePro score, the relative standing remains unknown.

The wins tally confirms the overall picture: the FirePro M4000 takes 1 win in the head-to-head tests, while the R7 M360 takes 0. The 19.4% OpenCL advantage is the single largest margin recorded between the two cards, and it is the only direct comparison available. The broader percentile data reinforces that the FirePro M4000, despite being the older product (released in June 2012 versus May 2015), outperforms the R7 M360 in compute workloads by a wide margin.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different points in AMD's architectural timeline. The FirePro M4000 is built on GCN 1.0, using the Chelsea chip, while the R7 M360 uses GCN 3.0 with the Meso chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, and their transistor counts are very close: 1,500 million for the FirePro M4000 and 1,550 million for the R7 M360. Die sizes are similarly close, at 123 mm² and 125 mm² respectively, yielding transistor densities of 12.2M per mm² for the FirePro and 12.4M per mm² for the R7 M360. The R7 M360's newer architecture squeezes slightly more transistors into a slightly larger die, but the fundamental process node is identical.

The compute configuration diverges significantly. The FirePro M4000 packs 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M360, despite being from a newer generation, has fewer of each: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This is a 25% reduction in shading units and TMUs, and a 50% reduction in ROPs. The architectural efficiency of GCN 3.0 partially compensates, as evidenced by the R7 M360's higher texture fill rate of 27.00 GTexel/s versus the FirePro's 21.60 GTexel/s, and its higher FP32 throughput of 864.0 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The R7 M360 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (864.0 GFLOPS), while the FirePro M4000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The FirePro M4000 has no base or boost clock listed in the database, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The R7 M360 runs at a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1125 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R7 M360's higher core clocks help explain its superior raw compute and texture rates despite having fewer execution units.

Memory is where the FirePro M4000 strikes back. It uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M360 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4.4x bandwidth advantage for the FirePro M4000, a massive difference that likely explains its OpenCL dominance. The R7 M360 has twice the memory capacity, but DDR3 on a narrow bus is a severe bottleneck for compute workloads that stream data.

The bus interfaces also differ: the FirePro M4000 uses MXM-A (3.0) and is a standard MXM Module, while the R7 M360 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro's TDP is listed at 33 W, while the R7 M360 has no TDP recorded. The FirePro M4000 has no power connectors, relying on the MXM slot, and its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The R7 M360's display outputs are not recorded.

Both cards support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, but the feature levels differ. The FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The newer generation brings a higher DirectX feature level, which matters for certain modern titles and compute APIs. Both are end-of-life products, with the FirePro M4000 succeeding the FirePro Mobility line and preceding the Radeon Pro Mobile line, while the R7 M360 succeeds the Solar System generation and precedes Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 19.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M360's 4638. The FirePro M4000 also ranks in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, versus the R7 M360's 29th percentile.

Q: Does the Radeon R7 M360 have any benchmark advantage?

A: The R7 M360 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5223, while the FirePro M4000 has no Vulkan score in the database. In the single head-to-head OpenCL test, the FirePro wins; the R7 M360's Vulkan result cannot be directly compared.

Q: Why does the FirePro M4000 win despite having fewer architectural features?

A: The FirePro M4000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M360 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. That 4.4x bandwidth advantage likely outweighs the R7 M360's higher core clocks and newer GCN 3.0 architecture.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M360 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro has 25% more shading units and TMUs, and double the ROPs.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture generation?

A: No. The FirePro M4000 uses GCN 1.0 with the Chelsea chip, while the R7 M360 uses GCN 3.0 with the Meso chip. Both are on TSMC's 28 nm process, with transistor counts of 1,500 million and 1,550 million respectively.

Q: What are the nearest competitors to each card in the database?

A: The FirePro M4000's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (0.7% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (1% behind). The R7 M360's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M265 at 4929, the AMD FirePro W5130M at 4904 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 at 4893 (0.8% behind).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R7 M360 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0. The FirePro is part of the FirePro Mobile (Mx000) generation, and the R7 M360 is part of the Gem System (R7 M300) generation.

Core configuration: the FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M360 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The R7 M360 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1125 MHz, while the FirePro M4000 has no base or boost clock recorded. Memory clocks also differ: the FirePro runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), and the R7 M360 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Memory subsystem: the FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M360 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro M4000 has a pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s, while the R7 M360 has a pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro and 864.0 GFLOPS for the R7 M360. The R7 M360 also lists FP16 at 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1), which the FirePro does not have.

Power and physical characteristics: the FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W, is an MXM Module with MXM-A (3.0) interface, and has no power connectors. The R7 M360 has no TDP recorded, no slot width listed, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The FirePro's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," while the R7 M360's are not recorded.

Transistor and die data: both use TSMC 28 nm, with the FirePro at 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die (12.2M per mm²) and the R7 M360 at 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die (12.4M per mm²). The FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Release timing: the FirePro M4000 launched in June 2012, while the R7 M360 launched in May 2015. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The R7 M360's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 is the clear winner for compute-heavy workloads that depend on memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 64.00 GB/s, which is 4.4x the R7 M360's 14.40 GB/s. In the OpenCL benchmark, this translates to a 19.4% lead over the R7 M360. The FirePro also has a higher pixel rate (10.80 GPixel/s versus 9.000 GPixel/s), double the ROPs (16 versus 8), and more shading units (512 versus 384). For any task that moves large amounts of data, such as GPU compute, image processing, or external display rendering, the FirePro M4000 is the stronger part. Its 32nd percentile ranking versus the R7 M360's 29th percentile further underscores its overall standing in the database.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins in raw compute throughput per clock. Its FP32 output of 864.0 GFLOPS exceeds the FirePro's 691.2 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s beats the FirePro's 21.60 GTexel/s. The R7 M360 also has a higher core clock (1100 MHz base, 1125 MHz boost) and supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which the FirePro does not list. For workloads that are compute-bound rather than bandwidth-bound, such as certain physics simulations or shader-heavy effects, the R7 M360's newer architecture gives it an edge. Its 2 GB memory capacity is double the FirePro's, which helps in applications that need larger working sets, even if the DDR3 interface limits throughput.

The R7 M360 also claims the Vulkan distinction. Its recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5223 shows it can handle modern API compute tasks, while the FirePro M4000 has no Vulkan score in the database. The R7 M360's DirectX 12 (12_0) feature level is higher than the FirePro's DirectX 12 (11_1), which may matter for newer games and applications that use advanced DX12 features. The R7 M360's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is also more modern than the FirePro's MXM-A (3.0) slot, though the practical difference depends on the host system.

In terms of nearest rivals, the FirePro M4000 sits alongside the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and GTX 765M, both within 1% of its score. The R7 M360 sits with the AMD Radeon R7 M265 and FirePro W5130M, also within 1%. This suggests the FirePro M4000 competes in a slightly higher performance tier than the R7 M360, despite being three years older. The 19.4% OpenCL gap between the two cards is the largest margin in their head-to-head data, and it is the decisive factor for anyone choosing between them for compute tasks.

For gaming, neither card is a standout by modern standards. Both are end-of-life products, and the R7 M360's lower bandwidth (14.40 GB/s) will likely cap its performance in texture-heavy games, while the FirePro M4000's older architecture lacks the newer DirectX 12 feature level. The FirePro M4000's 33 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops with MXM slots, assuming the chassis can handle the power draw. The R7 M360's lack of a recorded TDP makes its power behavior less well-defined, but its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface implies a standard notebook implementation.

The final verdict is straightforward: the FirePro M4000 wins the compute comparison by a wide margin, and the R7 M360 wins on architectural modernity and raw FLOPs. The database records 1 win for the FirePro and 0 for the R7 M360 in head-to-head tests. Users who need OpenCL performance should choose the FirePro M4000; users who need Vulkan support, FP16, or larger memory capacity should consider the R7 M360. There is no single winner across all metrics, but the benchmark data favors the FirePro M4000 overall.