AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 and AMD Radeon R5 M230 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD’s Gem System generation, but they represent different tiers within that family. The R7 M360 is built on the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, while the R5 M230 uses the Jet chip with the older GCN 1.0 design. Both are 28 nm parts from TSMC, yet their underlying specifications and benchmark results show a clear performance hierarchy, with the R7 M360 taking a narrow but consistent lead in the available data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the R7 M360 scores 4,638 points against the R5 M230’s 4,577 points. This gives the R7 M360 a 1.3% advantage, a modest but real margin. In raw terms, that is a 61-point difference, which places the R7 M360 ahead in compute workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration.

The R7 M360 also has a second benchmark result, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5,223, which the R5 M230 does not have. This Vulkan result is substantially higher than the R7 M360’s own OpenCL score, indicating that the newer GCN 3.0 architecture handles the Vulkan API more efficiently. While the R5 M230 lacks a Vulkan score entirely, the presence of this data point suggests the R7 M360 offers broader API support in practice.

When placed in the context of their respective peer groups, the winning margin becomes more meaningful. The R7 M360’s average benchmark score is 4,931, which places it at the 29th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M265, scores 4,929, a 0% delta, meaning the two are effectively tied. The R7 M360 also edges out the AMD FirePro W5130M (4,904, 0.6% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901, 0.6% slower) in the same score range. This clustering shows the R7 M360 sits at the top of a very tight performance band.

The R5 M230, in contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 4,577, placing it at the 27th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4,569, a 0.2% delta, meaning the R5 M230 is slightly ahead of that desktop card in this metric. The R5 M230 also outperforms the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4,560, 0.4% slower) but falls behind the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4,621, -0.9%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4,628, -1.1%). This indicates the R5 M230 is competitive in its segment but sits lower in absolute terms than the R7 M360.

The data shows a consistent, though not dramatic, advantage for the R7 M360 across every measurable head-to-head point. The 1.3% OpenCL lead is small, but the R7 M360’s additional Vulkan capability and higher average score reinforce that it is the stronger part. The R5 M230, with no wins in any comparison, remains the lesser performer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has an average benchmark score of 4,931, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4,577. The R7 M360 leads by 354 points, a 7.2% advantage.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The R7 M360 scores 4,638 and the R5 M230 scores 4,577, giving the R7 M360 a 1.3% win. The R5 M230 has no other benchmark results to compare.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each GPU?

A: The R7 M360 falls in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M230 is in the 27th percentile. This places both in the lower half of the performance distribution, but the R7 M360 is slightly higher.

Q: Does the R5 M230 support the Vulkan API?

A: The R5 M230 lists Vulkan 1.2.170 as a supported API, but it has no Geekbench Vulkan score in the data. The R7 M360, by contrast, has a Vulkan score of 5,223, which is higher than its OpenCL score.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R7 M360 has 384 shading units compared to 320 on the R5 M230. This 64-unit difference contributes to the R7 M360’s higher compute throughput.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The R7 M360’s Meso chip contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the R5 M230’s Jet chip has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The R7 M360 has more than double the transistor count.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architecture generations, which is the primary source of their performance gap. The R7 M360 uses GCN 3.0, a more mature design that improves instruction scheduling and memory efficiency over the R5 M230’s GCN 1.0. This architectural leap is reflected in the compute resources: the R7 M360 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units, while the R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and the same 8 ROPs. The R7 M360’s extra 64 shaders and 4 TMUs directly increase its pixel and texture rates.

The process technology is identical at 28 nm from TSMC, but the chips differ significantly in scale. The R7 M360’s Meso chip has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The R5 M230’s Jet chip has just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The near-identical density shows that the R7 M360’s advantage comes from sheer die size, not more efficient packing.

Clock speeds also diverge. The R7 M360 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1125 MHz, while the R5 M230 lists no base or boost clocks in the data. The memory clocks differ as well: the R7 M360 runs its DDR3 at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the R5 M230 runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. Interestingly, the R5 M230 has a higher memory clock, yet its bandwidth is lower at 16.00 GB/s versus the R7 M360’s 14.40 GB/s. This is because the R7 M360’s effective rate is not the sole determinant; the memory bus width is 64-bit for both, but the R7 M360’s lower clock is offset by its architecture’s memory controller efficiency.

The R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M230 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M360 also lists a pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s, compared to the R5 M230’s 4.880 GPixel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 864.0 GFLOPS for the R7 M360 and 390.4 GFLOPS for the R5 M230, a 2.2x difference. The R7 M360 also has FP16 at 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1), which the R5 M230 does not report.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the superior GPU. It wins the only head-to-head test available, posts a higher average score, and occupies a higher percentile rank. The 1.3% OpenCL lead is small, but the R7 M360’s additional Vulkan score of 5,223 and its higher compute rates (864.0 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS) show a substantial theoretical advantage that should translate to better real-world performance in supported applications.

The R5 M230 is not without merit in its own tier. It outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 560 by 0.2% and the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 0.4%, showing it can hold its own against certain desktop and integrated solutions. However, it loses to the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and GeForce GTX 970M, and it lacks the raw resources of the R7 M360. Its 320 shading units and 12.20 GTexel/s texture rate are clearly lower than the R7 M360’s 384 units and 27.00 GTexel/s.

For a user choosing between these two, the R7 M360 is the only rational pick if performance is the criterion. The R7 M360’s 29th percentile versus the R5 M230’s 27th percentile is a small gap, but the underlying specifications — more transistors, more shaders, higher clock speeds, and newer architecture — all favor the R7 M360. The R5 M230 might suffice for very light workloads, but the data shows no scenario where it wins outright.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The most significant differences are in the chip and architecture: the R7 M360 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0, while the R5 M230 uses the Jet chip with GCN 1.0. The R7 M360 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, versus 690 million on 56 mm² for the R5 M230. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.4M/mm² and 12.3M/mm², respectively.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The R7 M360 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost of 1125 MHz; the R5 M230 has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks also differ: the R7 M360 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the R5 M230 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Despite the R5 M230’s higher memory clock, bandwidth is lower at 16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, though both use 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Compute resources are higher on the R7 M360: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs versus 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 9.000 GPixel/s versus 4.880 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 27.00 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 864.0 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS. The R7 M360 also reports FP16 at 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1), which the R5 M230 does not list.

API support differs: the R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M230 is designated as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable device dependent display outputs, while the R7 M360 has no such designation. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The R5 M230 was released on 2014-01-06, while the R7 M360 came later on 2015-05-04.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M360 wins in every category where data exists. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it beats the R5 M230 by 1.3%. It has a higher average benchmark score (4,931 versus 4,577) and a higher percentile rank (29th versus 27th). The R7 M360 also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 5,223, which the R5 M230 lacks entirely, indicating the R7 M360 is better suited for Vulkan-based workloads.

For compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL acceleration, the R7 M360’s 864.0 GFLOPS FP32 performance is more than double the R5 M230’s 390.4 GFLOPS. This makes the R7 M360 the clear choice for any application that leverages general-purpose GPU computing. The R7 M360’s higher texture rate (27.00 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s) also gives it an edge in texture-bound graphics scenarios, while the identical 8 ROPs keep pixel throughput parity.

The R5 M230’s only potential advantage is its higher memory clock (1000 MHz versus 900 MHz) and slightly higher bandwidth (16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s). This could theoretically benefit memory-bound operations, but the gap is small and does not appear in any benchmark result. The R5 M230 also has a lower transistor count, which might imply lower power draw, but no TDP data exists to confirm this. In terms of actual performance, the R5 M230 has zero wins against the R7 M360. Its nearest rival comparisons show it beating the AMD Radeon RX 560 and Intel HD Graphics P530, but those are different products, not the R7 M360. For any use case requiring compute, graphics, or API support, the R7 M360 is the superior choice.