AMD Radeon 880M vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a decisive story: the AMD Radeon 880M dominates the AMD Radeon R9 M360 in every recorded comparison. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 880M scores 31,285 against the R9 M360’s 8,211, a staggering 281% advantage. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap that leaves the older GPU in a different performance class entirely.

The Vulkan results are even more lopsided. The 880M posts 40,006 points, while the R9 M360 manages just 8,047. The delta here reaches 397.2% — nearly a five-fold difference in raw compute throughput under the Vulkan API. For context, the 880M’s nearest rivals in the overall database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (average score 8,427, within 0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, -0.3%). The R9 M360, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135, -0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8,099, +0.4%). In short, the 880M is competing with entry-level discrete GPUs from a few generations ago, while the R9 M360 is firmly anchored in that same older tier — just without the modern architecture to push beyond it.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the 880M shows a well-rounded profile. Its Passmark G3D score of 7,615 and GPU Compute score of 3,719 indicate solid general-purpose and compute performance. The R9 M360 has no equivalent Passmark entries in the data, so direct comparisons there are impossible. However, the two Geekbench tests that do overlap are sufficient to establish the hierarchy: the 880M wins both, and it wins by margins that are not close.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this. The 880M averages 8,436 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. The R9 M360 averages 8,129, good for the 42nd percentile. While the percentile gap is small — just one point — the underlying scores tell a different story. The 880M’s average is pulled down by its lower-end DirectX tests (Passmark DX9 at 97, DX10 at 31, DX11 at 73, DX12 at 32), which are legacy API workloads where the integrated part does not shine. In modern compute and graphics APIs, it is overwhelmingly faster.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, and it explains the benchmark chasm. The 880M is built on TSMC’s 4 nm process node, packing 34,000 million transistors into a 233 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 145.9 million per square millimeter. The R9 M360, in contrast, uses the older 28 nm node from the same foundry, with just 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die — a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The density difference is roughly 12-fold, and it shows in every measurable way.

The chip underneath also differs fundamentally. The 880M uses the Strix Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation. The R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, from the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. RDNA 3.5 is a modern graphics architecture designed for efficiency and feature completeness, while GCN 1.0 is a decade-old design that has long since been superseded. The 880M is also listed as Active production status, while the R9 M360 is End-of-life — a clear indicator of where AMD’s priorities lie.

Core counts reinforce the gap. The 880M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 880M also adds 12 ray tracing cores, a feature the R9 M360 lacks entirely. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the 880M boosts to 2,900 MHz from a 400 MHz base, while the R9 M360 sits at 925 MHz boost and 900 MHz base. The result is a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s for the 880M, versus 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s for the R9 M360. FP32 compute is 4.454 TFLOPS for the 880M against 947.2 GFLOPS for the R9 M360 — a 4.7x difference.

Memory is another dividing line, though the comparison is apples-to-oranges. The 880M uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as System Dependent. The R9 M360 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s. In practice, the 880M’s shared memory architecture relies on system RAM, which can be a bottleneck, but the sheer compute advantage compensates. The R9 M360’s dedicated VRAM is a legacy advantage that does not overcome its architectural deficits.

Feature support also differs. The 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R9 M360 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, but the 880M runs Vulkan 1.4 against the R9 M360’s 1.2.170. The 880M also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R9 M360 is on PCIe 3.0 x16. The 880M is an IGP with no power connectors and a 15 W TDP; the R9 M360’s TDP is not listed, but its discrete nature implies a different power profile.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon 880M is the superior GPU by every measurable metric in the FACT PACK. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks with deltas of 281% and 397.2%. It has a higher average benchmark score (8,436 vs. 8,129), a higher percentile rank (43rd vs. 42nd), and a modern architecture that supports ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate. The R9 M360 is not just slower; it is obsolete, with an end-of-life status and no path forward.

Who should pick the 880M? Anyone running modern compute workloads, Vulkan-based applications, or DirectX 12 Ultimate titles. Its Geekbench scores — 31,285 in OpenCL and 40,006 in Vulkan — indicate strong performance for GPU-accelerated tasks. Its ray tracing cores and RDNA 3.5 architecture make it suitable for contemporary gaming and content creation.

Who should pick the R9 M360? The honest answer from the data is: almost no one. Its only advantages are its dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, which could matter in scenarios where system RAM is slow or shared memory causes contention. But those advantages are dwarfed by its compute deficit. The R9 M360 is a legacy part, and the benchmarks reflect that.

For users constrained to the R9 M360’s era of hardware, it remains a functional entry-level discrete GPU. But against the 880M, it is outclassed in every recorded test. The 880M is the clear choice for anyone building a modern system with an integrated GPU that can handle serious workloads.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 880M than the R9 M360 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The 880M scores 31,285 versus 8,211 for the R9 M360, a 281% advantage.

Q: Does the R9 M360 support ray tracing?

A: No. The R9 M360 has no ray tracing cores, while the 880M includes 12.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The 880M uses TSMC’s 4 nm node, while the R9 M360 uses 28 nm. The 880M also packs 34,000 million transistors versus 1,500 million for the R9 M360.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 880M averages 8,436 across all recorded tests, while the R9 M360 averages 8,129.

Q: What DirectX versions do they support?

A: The 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: Is the R9 M360 still in production?

A: No. The R9 M360 is listed as End-of-life, while the 880M is Active.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 880M wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 40,006 against 8,047 is the single largest margin, a 397.2% lead that underscores its modern architecture advantage. Its OpenCL score of 31,285 versus 8,211 shows similar dominance in compute workloads. The 880M also wins on transistor count, process node, shading units, TMUs, clock speed, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute, and API support. It has ray tracing cores; the R9 M360 does not.

The R9 M360’s only nominal advantages are its dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the 880M’s System Shared memory. In theory, this could help in memory-bandwidth-sensitive legacy workloads where shared memory causes system RAM bottlenecks. It also has a higher base clock relative to the 880M’s idle base — 900 MHz versus 400 MHz — though the 880M’s boost clock of 2,900 MHz obliterates that lead under load.

In practice, the use-case split is stark. The 880M is for modern workloads: DirectX 12 Ultimate gaming, Vulkan compute, ray-traced effects, and GPU-accelerated productivity. The R9 M360 is for legacy systems where its dedicated VRAM and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface are sufficient, and where the software stack does not require newer APIs. The data suggests the R9 M360’s era has passed; the 880M is the present and future.