AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD, yet they represent distinctly different design philosophies and performance tiers within the same 28 nm era. The benchmark data shows a clear, albeit modest, overall victory for the R7 M360, which secures a 7.3% lead in the only shared head-to-head test, the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark, scoring 5223 against the R6 M255DX's 4867. This places the R7 M360 in a higher percentile of all GPUs (29th) compared to the R6 M255DX (28th), reinforcing its position as the more capable discrete part, even if both sit in the entry-level segment of the market.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the available data, the AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the definitive choice for users seeking raw performance. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench Vulkan test, with a score of 5223, which is 7.3% higher than the R6 M255DX's 4867 score. This advantage translates to a higher average benchmark score of 4931 for the R7 M360, compared to 4867 for the R6 M255DX. For any application that leverages the Vulkan API, the R7 M360 is the only logical pick between these two.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, however, is not without its own strategic appeal. Its most defining feature is its integrated nature, operating as an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) with system-shared memory. This makes it fundamentally different from the R7 M360, which is a discrete chip with its own dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory. The R6 M255DX is designed for portability and simplicity, where the trade-off in performance is accepted for a more streamlined, power-efficient system. The data shows it is still a capable performer, sitting just 7.3% behind the R7 M360 in Vulkan, which suggests it handles lighter workloads adequately.

The verdict is not a simple "one is better." It is a question of design intent. The R7 M360 is for users who prioritize performance and are willing to have a dedicated graphics component. The R6 M255DX is for users who need a simple, integrated solution where the graphics card is part of the main processor package, sacrificing the performance edge for a more compact and potentially lower-power system. The 7.3% delta is the price of that integration.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous in the single test available. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark, a test that measures graphics compute performance through the Vulkan API. This indicates that in modern, cross-platform graphics workloads, the R7 M360 is the stronger performer. Its dedicated memory and higher clock speeds contribute to this victory.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has no benchmark wins in the data. However, its "win" is in its fundamental architecture. As an IGP, it wins in terms of system integration. It does not require a separate graphics card, a dedicated memory bus, or its own power delivery. It is a "Portable Device Dependent" solution, meaning it is tailored for systems where space and power are at a premium. Its performance, while lower, is still within 7.3% of the discrete R7 M360 in Vulkan, making it a viable solution for everyday tasks and light gaming where the convenience of an integrated part outweighs the need for maximum frame rates.

The R7 M360 wins on performance; the R6 M255DX wins on integration. This split is the core of their difference. The data does not show any scenario where the R6 M255DX outperforms the R7 M360, but it does show that it is a close enough performer to be a sensible choice for its intended, low-footprint market.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but their underlying architectures are from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) design. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 is based on the GCN 3.0 architecture, using the "Meso" chip. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, using the "Jet" chip. This generational gap is a significant differentiator.

The R7 M360's GCN 3.0 architecture is a more refined design, featuring a higher transistor count of 1,550 million on a 125 mm² die. In contrast, the R6 M255DX's GCN 1.0 chip is much smaller, with only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. This difference in scale directly impacts compute resources. The R7 M360 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 ROPs. The R6 M255DX has fewer of each: 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The R7 M360 runs at a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1125 MHz. The R6 M255DX is slower, with a base of 780 MHz and a boost of 855 MHz. This combination of a newer architecture, more processing units, and higher clocks gives the R7 M360 a clear theoretical advantage. The R7 M360 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R6 M255DX is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has a higher average benchmark score of 4931, compared to 4867 for the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX.

Q: Is the R7 M360 faster in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: Yes, the R7 M360 scores 5223 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 7.3% higher than the R6 M255DX's score of 4867.

Q: What is the fundamental difference in how they are used in a system?

A: The R7 M360 is a discrete GPU with its own dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the R6 M255DX is an integrated GPU (IGP) that uses the system's shared memory.

Q: Which GPU uses a more modern architecture?

A: The R7 M360 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture, which is newer than the GCN 1.0 architecture found in the R6 M255DX.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The R7 M360 has 384 shading units, while the R6 M255DX has 320 shading units.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the R6 M255DX?

A: The memory bandwidth of the R6 M255DX is "System Dependent" because it relies on shared system memory, unlike the R7 M360 which has a fixed 14.40 GB/s from its dedicated DDR3 memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark. In this test, the AMD Radeon R7 M360 decisively outperforms the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX. The R7 M360 scores 5223 points, while the R6 M255DX scores 4867 points. This represents a delta of 7.3% in favor of the R7 M360.

This result is consistent with the hardware specifications. The R7 M360 has a 20% advantage in shading units (384 vs. 320) and a 20% advantage in TMUs (24 vs. 20). More importantly, its clock speeds are substantially higher, with a boost clock of 1125 MHz compared to the R6 M255DX's 855 MHz. When combined, these factors lead to a significant raw compute advantage. The R7 M360's pixel rate is 9.000 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s for the R6 M255DX, and its texture rate is 27.00 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s.

The R7 M360's FP32 performance is 864.0 GFLOPS, a full 58% higher than the R6 M255DX's 547.2 GFLOPS. This large gap in theoretical compute power, driven by the newer architecture, more cores, and higher clocks, explains why the R7 M360 wins the Vulkan test by a solid margin. The R6 M255DX, despite having the same number of ROPs (8), simply cannot keep up with the R7 M360's superior internal processing capabilities. The 7.3% benchmark delta, while the only one recorded, is a direct reflection of these architectural and clock speed disparities.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key specifications where the two AMD GPUs differ, based on the provided data.

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M360 | AMD Radeon R6 M255DX |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | Meso | Jet |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M300) | Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200) |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1125 MHz | 855 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.000 GPixel/s | 6.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 27.00 GTexel/s | 17.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 864.0 GFLOPS | 547.2 GFLOPS |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | IGP |

| Slot Width | Not specified | IGP |

| Display Outputs | Not specified | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2014-01-06 |