AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 and AMD Radeon R5 M320 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD’s Gem System (M300) generation, released on the same day and built on the same 28 nm TSMC process. Despite their shared lineage, benchmark data reveals a split decision: the R7 M360 wins decisively in Vulkan performance, while the R5 M320 counterattacks with a lead in OpenCL. The average benchmark scores are close—4931 for the R7 M360 versus 4657 for the R5 M320—but the distribution of wins across APIs tells a more nuanced story about their respective strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 5223 against the R5 M320’s 4262. That is a 22.5% advantage for the R7 M360, a substantial margin that indicates a clear generational leap in graphics API efficiency. This is the largest delta between the two in any benchmark, and it positions the R7 M360 as the stronger choice for workloads that leverage Vulkan’s low-level access to the hardware.

However, the Geekbench OpenCL test flips the script. Here, the R5 M320 scores 5051, outperforming the R7 M360’s 4638 by 8.2%. This is a notable reversal, as the R5 M320 is the lower-tier product in AMD’s naming scheme, yet it manages to outpace its higher-numbered sibling in this particular compute workload. The OpenCL result suggests that the R5 M320’s higher memory bandwidth—16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s—may play a role in its favor for memory-bound compute tasks, even though its raw shader count is lower.

Looking at the broader context, the R7 M360’s average benchmark score of 4931 places it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M320’s 4657 lands in the 27th percentile. The R7 M360’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (average score 4929, 0% delta) and the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, 0.6% delta), showing it sits in a tight cluster of similar-performance parts. The R5 M320, by contrast, is bracketed by the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684, -0.6% delta), indicating it performs within a comparable range despite its lower percentile ranking.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 uses GCN 3.0, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the older GCN 1.0. This architectural gap is the primary driver of their performance differences, particularly in Vulkan where GCN 3.0’s improved command processor and resource management yield a 22.5% advantage.

The silicon itself differs significantly. The R7 M360 is based on the Meso chip, which contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.4 million per mm². The R5 M320 uses the Jet chip, a much smaller design with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, at a nearly identical density of 12.3 million per mm². The R7 M360’s larger chip houses 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R5 M320 reduces this to 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and still 8 ROPs.

Clock speeds also diverge. The R7 M360 runs at a base clock of 1100 MHz with a boost up to 1125 MHz, while the R5 M320 operates at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. This 320 MHz base clock difference is substantial and contributes to the R7 M360’s higher pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s versus the R5 M320’s 6.840 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows suit: 27.00 GTexel/s for the R7 M360 against 17.10 GTexel/s for the R5 M320. FP32 compute peaks at 864.0 GFLOPS for the R7 M360, with the R5 M320 trailing at 547.2 GFLOPS.

Memory configurations add another layer of contrast. Both use DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, but the R7 M360 offers 2 GB at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M320 doubles capacity to 4 GB, runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), and achieves 16.00 GB/s. This means the R5 M320 has 11.1% more memory bandwidth, which helps explain its OpenCL win despite weaker compute specs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360, with 864.0 GFLOPS FP32 versus the R5 M320’s 547.2 GFLOPS, a 57.9% advantage in theoretical peak throughput.

Q: Why does the R5 M320 win the OpenCL benchmark if it has fewer shading units?

A: The R5 M320’s memory bandwidth is 16.00 GB/s compared to 14.40 GB/s for the R7 M360, and it also has double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, which can benefit certain memory-intensive compute workloads in OpenCL.

Q: What is the architectural difference between the two?

A: The R7 M360 uses GCN 3.0 architecture on the Meso chip, while the R5 M320 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture on the Jet chip. This generational gap is evident in the Vulkan score difference.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: No. The R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M320 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The R7 M360 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the R5 M320 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, making the R7 M360’s chip roughly 2.2 times larger in both transistor count and die area.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The R7 M360, with an average score of 4931 versus the R5 M320’s 4657, a 5.9% difference that places them in the 29th and 27th percentiles of all GPUs, respectively.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The R7 M360 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, while the R5 M320 uses the Jet chip with GCN 1.0. Transistor count is 1,550 million versus 690 million, and die size is 125 mm² versus 56 mm². Base clock is 1100 MHz against 780 MHz, with boost clocks of 1125 MHz and 855 MHz, respectively. Memory size is 2 GB for the R7 M360 and 4 GB for the R5 M320. Memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7 M360 versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the R5 M320. Bandwidth is 14.40 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s.

Shading units number 384 on the R7 M360 versus 320 on the R5 M320. Texture mapping units are 24 versus 20, while ROPs are identical at 8. Pixel rate is 9.000 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 27.00 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 864.0 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS. The R7 M360 lists FP16 at 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1), while the R5 M320 has no FP16 data. The R5 M320 is classified as an IGP with display outputs marked “Portable Device Dependent,” whereas the R7 M360 has no such designations. DirectX support differs: 12 (12_0) for the R7 M360 versus 12 (11_1) for the R5 M320.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins in scenarios that demand modern graphics API performance. Its 22.5% lead in Geekbench Vulkan makes it the preferred option for Vulkan-based games or compute applications, where its GCN 3.0 architecture and higher clock speeds (1100 MHz base versus 780 MHz) translate directly into faster execution. The R7 M360 also dominates in raw compute metrics—864.0 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS FP32, 27.00 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s, and 9.000 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s—making it the stronger choice for any workload that stresses shader throughput or texturing.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins in the OpenCL benchmark with a score of 5051 against 4638, an 8.2% advantage. This suggests it has an edge in OpenCL-specific compute tasks, likely aided by its higher memory bandwidth (16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) and double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB). For users running OpenCL-based applications that are memory-bound or require larger frame buffers, the R5 M320’s configuration could prove more practical despite its lower shader count.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the superior GPU for Vulkan-centric workloads and any application that leverages its higher compute throughput, pixel rate, or texture rate. Its GCN 3.0 architecture and 22.5% Vulkan lead make it the recommended pick for modern graphics APIs, and its higher average benchmark score (4931 versus 4657) reinforces its overall performance edge.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320, however, is not without merit. Its OpenCL victory, coupled with 4 GB of memory and higher bandwidth, makes it a viable option for specific compute tasks or scenarios where larger memory capacity is a priority. The 8.2% OpenCL delta is significant, but it does not offset the R7 M360’s wins in Vulkan and its commanding lead in every raw specification except memory.

Ultimately, the R7 M360 is the stronger all-around part based on the benchmark data. The R5 M320’s single benchmark win is real but narrow, and its lower percentile ranking (27th versus 29th) aligns with its reduced compute resources. For anyone choosing between these two, the R7 M360 is the default recommendation, with the R5 M320 reserved for niche OpenCL or memory-capacity-focused use cases.