AMD Radeon R7 240 vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they represent distinctly different design philosophies and target different segments of the mobile and desktop market. The R7 240 is a discrete desktop card from the Volcanic Islands generation, while the R7 M360 is a mobile chip from the Gem System line. Despite the M360 being newer and featuring a more advanced architecture, benchmark data reveals a more nuanced picture, with the older desktop part holding a lead in at least one key compute workload. This analysis breaks down their performance, architectural differences, and specifications based strictly on the provided data.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results provide a clear, albeit limited, picture of where each GPU excels. The AMD Radeon R7 240 secures the only direct head-to-head victory in the available data. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 240 scores 5063, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4638. This translates to a 9.2% advantage for the desktop card, making it the definitive winner in this specific compute-heavy workload.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360, however, demonstrates a different kind of strength. While it lacks a direct head-to-head win against the R7 240, it is the only one of the two with a Geekbench Vulkan score. Its Vulkan score of 5223 is notably higher than its own OpenCL score of 4638, suggesting that its newer architecture is more efficient in modern, low-level graphics APIs. This indicates that the M360 is better positioned for newer gaming titles or applications that leverage Vulkan, whereas the R7 240's strength lies in more established OpenCL compute tasks. In terms of overall standing, the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the M360 is just below at the 29th percentile, showing they are closely matched in the broader performance hierarchy.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon R7 240 is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, utilizing the Oland chip. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, containing 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 M360 uses the newer GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip. It is also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but it packs significantly more hardware: 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. This makes the M360 a substantially larger and more complex chip.

This architectural leap has direct consequences for feature support. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the M360 supports the full DirectX 12 (12_0) feature set. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M360 also has a notable advantage in compute capability, offering FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it can process half-precision data at the same rate as full-precision. The R7 240's FP16 capability is not listed. The M360's newer architecture also yields a higher transistor density (12.4M / mm²) compared to the R7 240 (12.3M / mm²), though the difference is marginal. The M360's predecessor is listed as "Solar System," and its successor as "Polaris Mobile," positioning it as a stepping stone in AMD's mobile lineup, while the R7 240's lineage runs from "Sea Islands" to "Pirate Islands."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive win for the AMD Radeon R7 240. The R7 240 scores 5063 points, outpacing the R7 M360's 4638 points. This results in a 9.2% performance lead for the older, desktop-oriented card. This is a significant margin in the context of these low-power GPUs, showing that the R7 240's larger memory bus and dedicated desktop design provide a tangible benefit in raw compute throughput.

Looking at the rivals for each card provides further context. The R7 240's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M340 with an identical average score of 5063, and it is 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M. The R7 M360's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M265 at 4929, which is 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5130M. While not a direct comparison, this shows that the R7 240's score is at the top of its immediate performance class, whereas the M360's score is lower, aligning it with a slightly less performant group of chips. The data clearly indicates that in a pure OpenCL compute scenario, the R7 240 is the more capable processor, despite its older architecture and lower core clock speeds.

Specification Differences

The specifications of these two GPUs reveal their different design targets. The most striking difference is in memory configuration. The AMD Radeon R7 240 features a 128-bit memory bus with a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s, while the R7 M360 has a narrower 64-bit bus, halving bandwidth to 14.40 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the R7 240's wider bus gives it a massive advantage in memory throughput.

The compute configurations also differ significantly. The R7 M360 has more processing units: 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), compared to the R7 240's 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. Both have 8 render output units (ROPs). The M360's higher core clocks (base 1100 MHz, boost 1125 MHz) versus the R7 240's (base 730 MHz, boost 780 MHz) amplify its raw compute advantage. This is reflected in the fill rates and FLOPs: the M360 achieves a pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s, while the R7 240 manages 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s, respectively. The FP32 performance is also higher on the M360 at 864.0 GFLOPS compared to the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS.

The physical and power characteristics differ as well. The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card with a length of 168 mm and a height of 69 mm, requiring a 200 W suggested PSU and no additional power connectors, with a TDP of 30 W. The R7 M360's dimensions, TDP, and power requirements are not listed, as it is a mobile part. Finally, the R7 240 was released in 2013 and had a launch MSRP of 69 USD, while the M360 was released in 2015 and has no listed launch MSRP. The R7 240 offers display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA), while the M360's are not specified.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance (FP32)?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has a higher FP32 performance at 864.0 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Why does the R7 240 win in the OpenCL benchmark despite having fewer shading units?

A: The R7 240's victory is likely due to its significantly wider 128-bit memory bus, which provides 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth versus the M360's 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s. This memory advantage may offset the M360's higher core count and clocks in this specific workload.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two GPUs?

A: The R7 240 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Oland chip, while the R7 M360 uses the newer GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip. The M360 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: How do their overall performance percentiles compare?

A: They are very closely matched. The AMD Radeon R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 is at the 29th percentile.

Q: Which GPU offers better support for modern graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has an advantage, as it is the only one with a listed Geekbench Vulkan score (5223). It also supports the full DirectX 12 (12_0) feature set, compared to the R7 240's DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth and how does it impact performance?

A: The R7 240 has double the memory bandwidth of the M360, at 28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, due to its wider 128-bit bus. This is a critical advantage in bandwidth-sensitive tasks and likely contributes to its higher OpenCL score.