AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 records an average benchmark score of 4931, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4170. That puts the R7 M360 roughly 18% higher overall.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 M360 scores 4638 versus 4302 for the R5 M330. The R7 M360 leads by 7.8% in that workload.

Q: Is the R7 M360 also ahead in Vulkan?

A: Yes, and by a much wider margin. The R7 M360 scores 5223 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the R5 M330 scores 4037. That is a 29.4% advantage for the R7 M360.

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

A: The R7 M360 uses 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the R5 M330 uses 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The R7 M360 packs more than double the transistors.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The R7 M360 achieves 9.000 GPixel/s, while the R5 M330 achieves 8.240 GPixel/s. The R7 M360 is ahead by about 9% in pixel throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Radeon R7 M360 across both benchmark tests. The most striking result is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the R7 M360 scores 5223 against the R5 M330's 4037. That 29.4% delta is substantial and indicates a major difference in compute capability under the Vulkan API. The R7 M360 delivers nearly a third more performance in that workload, which is not a marginal gap but a decisive one.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the margin narrows considerably. The R7 M360 posts 4638, while the R5 M330 posts 4302. The 7.8% advantage for the R7 M360 is still a clear win, but it suggests that OpenCL workloads do not scale as dramatically with the R7 M360's extra hardware. Even so, the R7 M360 wins this test outright, and the combined results give it 2 wins and 0 losses in the head-to-head comparison.

When placed against the broader field, the R7 M360 sits at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, which puts it in the lower-mid range. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M265 at an average score of 4929 (a 0% delta), the AMD FirePro W5130M at 4904 (0.6% ahead of the R7 M360), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901 (0.6% ahead). The R7 M360 essentially trades blows with those parts, all within a 0.8% band. That means the R7 M360 is not an outlier in either direction; it is squarely competitive with its immediate peers.

The R5 M330, by contrast, sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4151 (0.4% ahead of the R5 M330), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4193 (0.5% behind the R5 M330), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093 (1.9% ahead of the R5 M330). The R5 M330 is also tightly clustered with its peers, but that cluster sits roughly 15% lower in average score than the R7 M360's cluster.

The delta between the two GPUs in average score is 761 points, which is larger than the gap between the R7 M360 and any of its listed rivals. In practical terms, the R7 M360 is not just marginally faster than the R5 M330; it occupies a distinctly higher performance tier. The Vulkan result alone accounts for most of that separation, but the OpenCL result confirms the trend.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the stronger GPU in every measured category. It wins both benchmark tests, has a higher average score, and sits at a higher percentile rank. For anyone choosing between these two, the R7 M360 is the clear pick on raw performance.

The R5 M330 is not without merit, but its advantages are limited to efficiency and physical footprint. It draws only 18 W, uses no power connectors, and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the R7 M360's higher power draw is not detailed in the database. However, the R7 M360 compensates with higher clocks, more shading units, and more texture units, which translate directly into the benchmark wins.

For a user who prioritizes compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan applications, the R7 M360 is the only rational choice. The 29.4% Vulkan lead is the kind of margin that shows up in real-world gaming and GPU-compute scenarios. For a user who needs the lowest possible power envelope and does not require maximum performance, the R5 M330's 18 W TDP and IGP classification might be more attractive. But that is a niche use case, and the benchmark data does not support choosing the R5 M330 for performance reasons.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share several specifications but diverge on core hardware. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, and both run memory at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, and both were released on the same date with end-of-life production status.

The differences start with the chip itself. The R7 M360 uses the Meso chip, while the R5 M330 uses the Exo chip. The R7 M360 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R5 M330 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and still 8 ROPs. That means the R7 M360 has 64 more shading units and 4 more TMUs, which explains its higher texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also favor the R7 M360. Its base clock is 1100 MHz with a boost of 1125 MHz, while the R5 M330 runs at 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. The R7 M360's higher clocks, combined with more cores, yield 864.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance against 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M330. The R7 M360 also lists FP16 at 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the R5 M330 has no FP16 data recorded.

Pixel rate differences are smaller but still present: 9.000 GPixel/s for the R7 M360 versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M330. The R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M330 has a recorded TDP of 18 W, while the R7 M360 has no TDP listed. The R5 M330 is classified as an IGP with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the R7 M360 lists no such details.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is significant. The R7 M360 is built on GCN 3.0, while the R5 M330 uses the older GCN 1.0. This is not a minor revision; GCN 3.0 brings architectural improvements that likely contribute to the R7 M360's stronger Vulkan showing. Both chips are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the R7 M360's Meso die is much larger at 125 mm² versus 56 mm² for the R5 M330's Exo die.

Transistor counts reflect the size difference. The R7 M360 packs 1,550 million transistors, while the R5 M330 has 690 million. That is a 2.25x difference in transistor count, yet the transistor density is nearly identical: 12.4M per mm² for the R7 M360 and 12.3M per mm² for the R5 M330. This means the R7 M360 is not using a denser process; it is simply a much bigger chip with more compute resources.

The R7 M360's newer GCN 3.0 architecture also explains its DirectX 12 (12_0) support, which is a higher feature level than the R5 M330's DirectX 12 (11_1). For Vulkan, both list the same version 1.2.170, but the R7 M360's superior hardware still delivers a 29.4% win in that API. The R7 M360 also has FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the R5 M330 has no FP16 data. That could matter for workloads that use half-precision math, though the database does not include a dedicated FP16 benchmark.

Both GPUs share the same generation ("Gem System" for R7 M300 and R5 M300), the same predecessor ("Solar System"), and the same successor ("Polaris Mobile"). The release dates are identical. The real differences are architectural maturity and silicon size, both of which favor the R7 M360.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins in every performance category recorded. It takes the OpenCL test by 7.8% and the Vulkan test by 29.4%. It has higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, higher FP32 throughput, and more shading units. For any application that stresses compute, graphics rendering, or API-level performance, the R7 M360 is the superior choice.

The R5 M330's only recorded wins are in efficiency and form factor. It draws 18 W, which is a documented power figure, while the R7 M360 has no TDP listed. The R5 M330 is also classified as an IGP, meaning it is designed for integration into a laptop motherboard without discrete power connectors. This makes it a candidate for ultraportable systems where power draw is a primary constraint. The R7 M360, by contrast, does not have such efficiency credentials in the database.

In practical terms, the R5 M330 is best suited for basic laptop duties where the GPU is an afterthought. Its 25th percentile ranking puts it below the R7 M360's 29th percentile, and its average score of 4170 is 761 points lower. The R7 M360, while still a low-end part by modern standards, at least approaches the performance of the AMD Radeon R7 M265 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, both of which sit within 0.8% of its average score.

For gaming, the Vulkan result is the most telling. A 29.4% lead in Vulkan suggests that the R7 M360 will handle Vulkan-based titles noticeably better than the R5 M330. For OpenCL compute, the R7 M360's 7.8% lead is more modest but still decisive. There is no benchmark in the database where the R5 M330 comes out ahead. The verdict is unambiguous: the R7 M360 is the performance pick, and the R5 M330 is the efficiency pick.