AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs AMD Radeon R5 M240

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 and AMD Radeon R5 M240 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD's Gem System generation, sharing the GCN 1.0 architecture and a 28 nm TSMC process, yet they occupy clearly different performance tiers. The recorded data shows the R9 M360 as the outright winner in the only head-to-head benchmark, delivering a 17.7% higher Geekbench OpenCL score (8211 vs 6975). This places the R9 M360 in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M240 sits in the 39th percentile. The performance gap is substantial for compute workloads, but the two cards differ in memory capacity, bandwidth, and interface width, which matters for specific use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 wins in every measured benchmark category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 8211 is 17.7% higher than the R5 M240's 6975, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, video encoding, or any general-purpose GPU workload. The R9 M360 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8047, a benchmark the R5 M240 does not have a recorded result for, indicating broader API support validation in the database. For users running applications that leverage Vulkan, the R9 M360 has a demonstrated capability, whereas the R5 M240 lacks any recorded Vulkan performance data.

The R5 M240 does not win any benchmark in the database, but it is not without its own positioning. It is a lower-tier part with 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, compared to the R9 M360's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. For workloads that are not parallel-heavy or memory-bandwidth-intensive, the R5 M240's higher base and boost clocks (1000 MHz and 1030 MHz) could narrow the gap, but the database does not contain any synthetic or gaming benchmarks to confirm this. The R5 M240's smaller 1024 MB memory allocation and 64-bit bus make it unsuitable for large datasets or high-resolution textures, while the R9 M360's 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus is better equipped for those demands.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 and use TSMC's 28 nm process, but their silicon implementations diverge significantly. The R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip, which contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The R5 M240 uses the smaller Jet chip, packing 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, with a nearly identical transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The R9 M360's larger die and more than double the transistor count directly enable its higher core configuration.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The R9 M360 features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory running at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), with a 128-bit bus and 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M240 is equipped with 1024 MB of DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), a 64-bit bus, and only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 5x difference in memory bandwidth, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and compute tasks that stream data. The R9 M360 also connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the available host interface bandwidth for data transfers.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The R5 M240 has a higher base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, compared to the R9 M360's 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Despite this clock advantage, the R5 M240's fewer shading units and lower memory bandwidth result in significantly lower throughput. The R9 M360 achieves 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and a texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s, while the R5 M240 manages 659.2 GFLOPS and 20.60 GTexel/s. Pixel rates follow the same pattern: 14.80 GPixel/s for the R9 M360 versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M240.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API feature parity is complete. The R9 M360 was released on May 4, 2015, while the R5 M240 came earlier on September 17, 2014. Both share the same predecessor, "Solar System," and successor, "Polaris Mobile," according to the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8211, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, giving the R9 M360 a 17.7% advantage. This margin is substantial in compute terms, representing a full tier of separation in raw parallel processing capability. For context, the R9 M360's average benchmark score of 8129 puts it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135) and 0.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8167). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce 945M by 0.4% (8099) and the NVIDIA GRID K2 by 0.6% (8080). The R9 M360 sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outperforms 42% of the database's tracked graphics hardware.

The R5 M240's average benchmark score of 6975 places it 0.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946) and 2.1% above the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M by 0.7% (7023) and the NVIDIA T600 by 0.8% (7035). The R5 M240's 39th percentile ranking is only three points lower than the R9 M360's 42nd, but the raw score gap of 1236 points is significant. The R9 M360 also posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8047, which is close to its OpenCL result and indicates consistent performance across different compute APIs. No Vulkan score exists for the R5 M240, so cross-API comparison is not possible.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M360. It scores 8211 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 6975 for the R5 M240, a 17.7% advantage, and it delivers 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to 659.2 GFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory specifications compare?

A: The R9 M360 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, a 5x bandwidth gap.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9 M360 has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 8047, while the R5 M240 has no Vulkan score in the database.

Q: What are the core configurations of each GPU?

A: The R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The R5 M240, with a base clock of 1000 MHz and boost of 1030 MHz, versus the R9 M360's 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Despite this, the R9 M360 wins all recorded benchmarks.

Q: How do they rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The R9 M360 is in the 42nd percentile, while the R5 M240 is in the 39th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 8129 and 6975, respectively.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M360 | AMD Radeon R5 M240 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Tropo | Jet |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 925 MHz | 1030 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 320 |

| TMUs | 32 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 29.60 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 947.2 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2014-09-17 |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R9 M360 is the superior GPU in every recorded metric. Its 17.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, 5x higher memory bandwidth, and double the ROP count make it the appropriate choice for anyone needing compute performance, larger texture buffers, or higher-resolution rendering. The R9 M360's 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is particularly relevant for modern workloads where 1024 MB of DDR3 on the R5 M240 would be a bottleneck. Its position at the 42nd percentile, nearly matching the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, reinforces that it competes in a higher performance class.

The R5 M240 is not a bad part for its intended role, but the database shows no scenario where it wins. Its higher clocks (1000 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost) suggest it was optimized for power efficiency rather than peak throughput, and its 39th percentile ranking keeps it competitive with older NVIDIA parts like the GeForce GTX 675M. However, with only 320 shading units, 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, it is suited only for light duties such as basic display output or low-intensity compute. The R9 M360 is the pick for any user prioritizing performance, while the R5 M240 only makes sense in configurations where lower power draw and smaller silicon are the primary constraints.