AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 and AMD Radeon R5 M255 are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from AMD’s GCN 3.0 generation, both built on the same 28 nm TSMC process with identical transistor counts and die sizes. The benchmark data reveals a split decision: the R7 M360 wins one test decisively, while the R5 M255 edges out the other by a hair. Their average benchmark scores differ by just 143 points, placing them in adjacent percentiles (29th vs 28th), which makes this comparison a study in narrow margins and architectural trade-offs rather than a clear generational leap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result comes from the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the R7 M360 posts a score of 5223 against the R5 M255’s 4925. That is a 6.1% advantage for the R7 M360, a meaningful gap in a synthetic workload that stresses modern graphics APIs. This win aligns with the R7 M360’s higher clock speeds: its base clock runs at 1100 MHz and boosts to 1125 MHz, compared to the R5 M255’s 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. The R7 M360’s Vulkan score also exceeds its own OpenCL result by 585 points, suggesting the architecture handles asynchronous compute and draw call overhead particularly well at those higher frequencies.

The OpenCL test tells a different story. The R5 M255 scores 4650, narrowly beating the R7 M360’s 4638 — a delta of just -0.3% from the R7 M360’s perspective. This is essentially a statistical tie, but it is a notable outcome given the R7 M360’s clock advantage. The R5 M255 compensates with a wider memory bus: 128 bit versus 64 bit, delivering 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the R7 M360’s 14.40 GB/s. In compute-heavy OpenCL workloads that are memory-bound, that 2.2x bandwidth advantage can offset a 19% clock deficit. The result is a split decision — one win each — with the R7 M360 taking the larger margin overall.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the R7 M360 aggregates to 4931, while the R5 M255 lands at 4788. That 143-point gap (roughly 3%) favors the R7 M360, but both GPUs sit in the same performance tier. The R7 M360’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (avg score 4929, 0% delta) and the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, 0.6% delta), meaning it is effectively tied with those parts. The R5 M255’s nearest rivals show a different competitive landscape: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB sits at 4791 (-0.1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4844 (-1.2% delta). These rival deltas are all within 1.3%, underscoring how tightly clustered this performance segment is.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same foundational architecture: GCN 3.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 12.4M / mm². This is a case of two chips from the same family — Meso for the R7 M360 and Topaz for the R5 M255 — that differ more in configuration than in fundamental design.

The compute core counts are identical: both have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The differences emerge in clock speeds and memory subsystem design. The R7 M360 runs at 1100 MHz base and 1125 MHz boost, while the R5 M255 operates at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. That translates to a 19% clock advantage for the R7 M360, which directly boosts its pixel fill rate to 9.000 GPixel/s versus the R5 M255’s 7.520 GPixel/s, and its texture rate to 27.00 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s. FP32 compute follows the same pattern: 864.0 GFLOPS for the R7 M360 against 721.9 GFLOPS for the R5 M255. Both GPUs deliver FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so the same proportional difference applies there.

Memory is where the R5 M255 fights back. It uses a 128-bit DDR3 bus with 1000 MHz memory clock (2 Gbps effective), yielding 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M360, despite its higher core clocks, uses a 64-bit bus with 900 MHz memory (1800 Mbps effective), capping bandwidth at 14.40 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of DDR3. The R5 M255’s bandwidth advantage is more than double, which explains why its OpenCL score stays competitive despite lower compute throughput. In terms of API support, both are identical: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

The release timeline shows the R5 M255 launched first in October 2014, with the R7 M360 following in May 2015. Both are marked end-of-life, and both list “Solar System” as their predecessor and “Polaris Mobile” as their successor. The R7 M360’s generation is listed as “Gem System (R7 M300)” while the R5 M255 belongs to “Gem System (R5 M200),” but this is a marketing distinction; the underlying silicon shares the same process, transistor budget, and architecture node.

The Verdict

The data points to a narrow but real performance hierarchy. The R7 M360 holds the average benchmark crown with 4931 versus 4788, and it wins the Vulkan test by a decisive 6.1% margin. For workloads that leverage Vulkan — modern games, compute shaders, and API-forward applications — the R7 M360 is the stronger pick. Its higher clocks (1100/1125 MHz vs 925/940 MHz) deliver 19% more FP32 throughput (864.0 GFLOPS vs 721.9 GFLOPS) and proportionally higher pixel and texture rates.

The R5 M255’s case rests on memory bandwidth. Its 128-bit bus and 32.00 GB/s bandwidth are more than double the R7 M360’s 14.40 GB/s, and that advantage shows up in the OpenCL test where it edges ahead by 12 points (4650 vs 4638). Users running OpenCL compute workloads — physics simulations, image processing, or any memory-heavy kernel — may find the R5 M255 unexpectedly competitive.

For gaming, the Vulkan result is more predictive of modern title performance, and that favors the R7 M360. For legacy OpenCL applications, the R5 M255 holds its own. Neither GPU is a clear winner across all metrics; the R7 M360 takes the overall average and the more modern API test, while the R5 M255 counters with superior memory throughput and a marginal OpenCL win. Given that the R7 M360 wins the test with the larger margin (6.1% vs 0.3%), the overall recommendation leans toward the R7 M360 for general use, with the caveat that memory-bound OpenCL tasks are the R5 M255’s territory.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4931 on average, compared to the R5 M255’s 4788, a difference of 143 points.

Q: How do they compare in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The R7 M360 wins with 5223 points against the R5 M255’s 4925, a 6.1% advantage.

Q: What is the result of the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The R5 M255 wins narrowly, scoring 4650 versus the R7 M360’s 4638, a margin of just 0.3%.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same memory bus width?

A: No. The R5 M255 uses a 128-bit bus, while the R7 M360 uses a 64-bit bus. The R5 M255 delivers 32.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s for the R7 M360.

Q: Are the core counts identical between the two?

A: Yes. Both have 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The R7 M360 runs at higher clocks (1100/1125 MHz) than the R5 M255 (925/940 MHz).

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each?

A: Both GPUs have 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, built on a 28 nm TSMC process with a density of 12.4M / mm².

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M360 wins in scenarios that reward raw compute throughput and modern API efficiency. Its Vulkan score of 5223 outperforms the R5 M255 by 6.1%, and its FP32 output of 864.0 GFLOPS is 19.7% higher than the R5 M255’s 721.9 GFLOPS. Pixel rate (9.000 GPixel/s vs 7.520 GPixel/s) and texture rate (27.00 GTexel/s vs 22.56 GTexel/s) also favor the R7 M360. This makes it the better choice for Vulkan-based games, shader-heavy rendering, and any workload that scales with clock speed rather than memory bandwidth. Its average score of 4931 also places it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, one point higher than the R5 M255’s 28th percentile.

The R5 M255 wins in memory-bound scenarios. Its 128-bit bus provides 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 122% higher than the R7 M360’s 14.40 GB/s. This is the key factor behind its OpenCL victory (4650 vs 4638), and it suggests the R5 M255 is more resilient when a workload cannot fit in cache and must stream data from VRAM. The R5 M255 also launched earlier (October 2014 vs May 2015), so it may be found in older systems. For users running OpenCL compute tasks or legacy applications that favor wide memory interfaces, the R5 M255’s bandwidth advantage is the deciding factor. However, its lower clocks (925/940 MHz) and reduced compute throughput (721.9 GFLOPS) mean it trails in geometry-heavy or shader-bound tasks.

In direct head-to-head benchmark wins, the score is tied at one win each. The R7 M360’s win is more decisive (6.1% margin), while the R5 M255’s win is marginal (0.3% margin). The average score gap of 143 points (3%) favors the R7 M360, making it the default recommendation for balanced use. The R5 M255 is the specialist’s pick for bandwidth-dependent compute, but the R7 M360 offers better overall performance and a stronger showing in the Vulkan API that modern software increasingly targets.