AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs AMD Radeon R7 M365X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X and AMD Radeon R5 M320 are siblings from the same product family, launched on the same day in May of 2015 and both built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture at TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both chips are now end-of-life parts that sit in the lower tiers of the database, and both trace their lineage back to the Solar System generation and were eventually superseded by Polaris Mobile. Yet despite the shared DNA, the recorded data shows the R7 M365X winning every head-to-head benchmark, and the gap is not trivial. Across the two recorded Geekbench tests, the M365X leads by double-digit margins, which makes this comparison less of a contest and more of a clean sweep for the higher-tier part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head results for this pairing, and both went to the R7 M365X.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 M365X scored 5939 against 5051 for the R5 M320, a delta of 17.6 percent. That is a substantial gap for two chips that share an architecture, a process node, and a release date. OpenCL throughput tends to reward raw shading horsepower and memory bandwidth, and the M365X holds advantages in both areas, which the score reflects directly.

The Vulkan result narrows the margin but does not change the story. The R7 M365X posted 4893 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the R5 M320 managed 4262, a 14.8 percent advantage for the M365X. A roughly three-point shrink between the OpenCL and Vulkan runs suggests the R5 M320 fares slightly better relative to its sibling in graphics API workloads than in general compute, but the underlying deficit is too large for that to matter in practice.

The aggregate numbers reinforce the sweep. The R7 M365X carries an average benchmark score of 5416 and sits at the 32nd percentile against all GPUs in the database. The R5 M320 averages 4657 and lands at the 27th percentile. The head-to-head record is two wins for the M365X and zero for the M320, and no recorded test in the database shows the M320 finishing ahead.

Context from each chip's nearest rivals makes the tiers clear. The R7 M365X scores within touching distance of the AMD Radeon 610M (average 5444, just 0.5 percent ahead of the M365X), the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5370, 0.9 percent behind), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, 0.9 percent ahead), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, 1.1 percent behind). In other words, the M365X trades blows in a cluster of integrated and entry-level discrete parts. The R5 M320's rival set includes the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, which the database lists at an identical average of 4657, along with the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684, 0.6 percent ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, 0.6 percent behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, 0.8 percent behind). The M320's cluster sits a full tier below the M365X's, and the benchmark scores confirm the separation.

Architecture Differences

On paper these are closely related chips, and the shared specifications are numerous. Both use the GCN 1.0 architecture, both are fabbed by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and both connect over PCIe 3.0 x8. Both support DirectX 12 (feature level 11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has RT cores or tensor cores, as expected for parts of this vintage. Both carry the Gem System (R7 M300 and R5 M300 series respectively) generation label.

The differences begin with scale. The R7 M365X's chip, code-named Litho, packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The R5 M320's chip, code-named Jet, uses 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Notably, both parts achieve the same transistor density of 12.3M per mm², which is consistent with the shared node and design methodology, so the M365X is essentially a larger, more generously provisioned implementation of the same fundamental design.

That larger die translates into more compute resources. The M365X has 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, against 320 shading units and 20 TMUs for the M320, a 20 percent advantage in both categories. Both chips have 8 render output units, so the raster back-end is identical. The theoretical rates follow the resource counts: the M365X delivers 19.80 GTexel/s of texture throughput and 633.6 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the M320 offers 17.10 GTexel/s and 547.2 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the M320 claims a marginally higher pixel rate at 6.840 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s for the M365X, a quirk of its higher boost clock, though with identical ROP counts this theoretical figure does not translate into a benchmark win anywhere in the recorded data.

The memory subsystem is where the two designs diverge most sharply, and it likely explains a good portion of the benchmark gap. The R7 M365X pairs 1024 MB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz for 4 Gbps effective, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M320 has 4096 MB of DDR3 on a narrow 64-bit bus, also clocked at 1000 MHz but at 2 Gbps effective, for just 16.00 GB/s. That is a fourfold bandwidth advantage for the M365X. The M320's sole memory-side win is capacity: 4 GB versus 1 GB, which could matter for workloads that exceed a 1 GB framebuffer, though the bandwidth ceiling of the M320 limits how much it can exploit that headroom.

Clock behavior also differs. The database records a 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost clock for the R5 M320, while no core clock figures are recorded for the M365X. Both are classified as integrated graphics parts in the database's slot-width field, with the M320 explicitly marked IGP and display output listed as portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M365X wins everywhere the database has measurements. It is faster in compute, 17.6 percent ahead in Geekbench OpenCL, and faster in graphics API throughput, 14.8 percent ahead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its higher shading unit count, wider 128-bit GDDR5 subsystem, and quadruple memory bandwidth give it the structural advantages that show up in both test types. For any workload recorded in the database, whether general-purpose GPU compute via OpenCL or rendering-oriented Vulkan tasks, the M365X is the stronger performer, and its 32nd percentile ranking versus the M320's 27th reflects that across the broader GPU landscape.

The R5 M320's case rests on two qualitative points. First, its 4 GB of DDR3 memory quadruples the capacity of the M365X's 1 GB frame buffer, which in theory suits scenarios with large asset sets, though its 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth means it cannot move those assets quickly. Second, its smaller 56 mm² die with 690 million transistors represents a leaner implementation of the same architecture, which aligns with its lower market tier in the R5 line rather than the R7. Neither point translates into a recorded benchmark win, but they are the only areas where the data favors the M320 at all.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X. It won both head-to-head tests, scoring 5939 versus 5051 in Geekbench OpenCL (17.6 percent ahead) and 4893 versus 4262 in Geekbench Vulkan (14.8 percent ahead).

Q: Do the two GPUs use the same architecture and manufacturing process?

A: Yes. Both are GCN 1.0 parts built by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and both achieve an identical transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The M365X's Litho chip is simply larger, at 950 million transistors and 77 mm², versus 690 million transistors and 56 mm² for the M320's Jet chip.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The R7 M365X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M320 has 4096 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M320 has more capacity, while the M365X has four times the bandwidth.

Q: Where does each GPU rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The R7 M365X sits at the 32nd percentile with an average benchmark score of 5416. The R5 M320 sits at the 27th percentile with an average of 4657.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life, and both were superseded by AMD's Polaris Mobile line. Both were released on the same date in May 2015.

Q: Which GPUs are closest in performance to each chip?

A: The R7 M365X trades within about one percent of the AMD Radeon 610M, Intel UHD Graphics P630, NVIDIA Quadro M4000, and AMD Radeon R7 M445. The R5 M320 sits level with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB as recorded, within one percent of the NVIDIA Quadro P400, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the R7 M365X is the better-performing GPU, and it is not a close call. It swept both head-to-head benchmarks with margins of 17.6 and 14.8 percent, holds a higher percentile ranking against the full database, and competes in a rival tier one step above the M320's. Anyone choosing between these two for compute or graphics workloads should pick the R7 M365X.

The R5 M320's appeal is narrow. Its 4 GB frame buffer dwarfs the M365X's 1 GB, so it is the only sensible choice among the two for tasks that genuinely require more than 1 GB of memory, provided the workload can tolerate its 16.00 GB/s bandwidth limit. Its smaller die and leaner resource count mark it as the entry-level option of the pair. But in every test the database actually measured, the M365X wins, and the decision should follow that data: choose the R7 M365X for performance, and consider the R5 M320 only when memory capacity is the binding constraint.