AMD Radeon R7 250 vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

AMD Radeon R9 M360 and AMD Radeon R7 250 are both end-of-life graphics cards built on the same 28 nm process and GCN 1.0 architecture, but they target different segments: the M360 is a mobile chip from the R9 M300 generation, while the R7 250 is a desktop card from the R7 200 generation. The data shows a clear performance gap in favor of the M360, with an average benchmark score of 8129 against the R7 250’s 7557, a difference of 8.7% in the single head-to-head test available. Both cards share identical core configurations—512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units—but diverge significantly in memory subsystem and clock speeds, which explains the performance delta.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the available benchmark data?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M360 wins the only head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) with a score of 8211 versus the R7 250’s 7557, an 8.7% advantage. Its average benchmark score of 8129 also places it higher in the overall percentile ranking (42nd) compared to the R7 250’s 41st percentile.

Q: Do both cards have the same GPU core configuration?

A: Yes. Both the R9 M360 and R7 250 feature 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. They also share the same transistor count (1,500 million), die size (123 mm²), and transistor density (12.2M / mm²), indicating they are derived from similar silicon.

Q: What is the key difference in memory performance?

A: The R9 M360 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 uses only 1 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus, yielding just 28.80 GB/s. This 2.5x bandwidth advantage is a major factor in the M360’s higher scores.

Q: Why does the R9 M360 have a higher clock speed than the R7 250?

A: The M360 operates at a base clock of 900 MHz with a boost up to 925 MHz, while the R7 250 has no listed base or boost clocks in the data. The M360’s memory also runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), compared to the R7 250’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), further widening the performance gap.

Q: Are there any physical or power differences between the two cards?

A: Yes. The R7 250 is a single-slot, 168 mm (6.6 inches) long desktop card with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R9 M360 has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, or dimensions, as it is a mobile part.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R9 M360 sits within 0.6% of three NVIDIA parts: GTX 950M (-0.1%), GTX 980 (-0.5%), and 945M (+0.4%), plus GRID K2 (+0.6%). The R7 250 is within 1.5% of Intel Arc A310 (+0.1%), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (-0.3%), NVIDIA GTX 1650 (+1.1%), and AMD HD 8850M (+1.5%).

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process using GCN 1.0 architecture, which is the oldest GCN iteration. The chip names differ: the R9 M360 uses the “Tropo” chip, while the R7 250 uses “Cape Verde.” Despite this, the core logic is identical—both have 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, resulting in the same pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s), texture rate (29.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (947.2 GFLOPS). The transistor count and die size are also identical at 1,500 million and 123 mm² respectively.

The architectural differences manifest in the memory controller and clocks. The M360’s GDDR5 memory at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) provides 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 250’s DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) yields only 28.80 GB/s. This is not a core architectural change but a memory type and speed difference that heavily impacts real-world throughput. Both cards support the same API levels—DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170—so software compatibility is identical.

Neither card includes ray tracing or tensor cores, as those are absent from the data. The M360 belongs to the “Gem System (R9 M300)” generation, while the R7 250 is from “Volcanic Islands (R7 200),” indicating a generational gap in product lineup, not in silicon design. The M360’s predecessor is “Solar System” and successor is “Polaris Mobile”; the R7 250’s predecessor is “Sea Islands” and successor is “Pirate Islands.”

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the R9 M360 scores 8211 against the R7 250’s 7557, a delta of 8.7% in favor of the M360. This is a moderate but consistent lead, driven primarily by the M360’s faster memory. The M360’s GDDR5 bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s is exactly 2.5 times the R7 250’s 28.80 GB/s, which directly benefits compute workloads that are memory-bound. The core compute throughput (947.2 GFLOPS FP32) is identical, so the entire performance difference stems from memory speed and clock behavior.

Looking at the rivals, the M360’s 8211 OpenCL score places it nearly level with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135, -0.1%) and GTX 980 (8167, -0.5%), and slightly ahead of the 945M (8099, +0.4%). This suggests the M360 is competitive with mid-range mobile NVIDIA parts from the same era. The R7 250’s 7557 score is close to the Intel Arc A310 (7550, +0.1%) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, -0.3%), but noticeably behind the GTX 1650 (7472, +1.1% in favor of the R7 250). The R7 250 also outperforms the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, +1.5%).

In terms of percentile ranking, the M360 sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 250 is at the 41st. This 1-percentile gap reflects the 8.7% score difference, indicating that the M360 is marginally better positioned in the overall performance distribution. The M360 has one win in head-to-head benchmarks, while the R7 250 has zero.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. The R9 M360 has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz, while the R7 250 has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory configuration is starkly different: the M360 has 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, versus the R7 250’s 1 GB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The M360’s memory capacity is four times larger, and its bandwidth is 2.5 times higher.

The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, is a single-slot card, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. It also lists display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The R9 M360 has none of these fields populated, as it is a mobile part without standardized desktop dimensions. The R7 250’s physical length is 168 mm (6.6 inches). Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. The R7 250 has a release date of 2013-10-07, while the R9 M360 was released later on 2015-05-04. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed.

The chip names differ (Tropo vs. Cape Verde), as do the generation labels (“Gem System (R9 M300)” vs. “Volcanic Islands (R7 200)”). The R7 250 is from the older “Sea Islands” predecessor line, while the R9 M360’s predecessor is “Solar System.” Successor lines also differ: “Polaris Mobile” for the M360 and “Pirate Islands” for the R7 250.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the AMD Radeon R9 M360 is the stronger performer. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 8.7% (8211 vs. 7557 OpenCL), has a higher average score (8129 vs. 7557), and sits at a slightly higher percentile (42nd vs. 41st). The M360’s advantages come entirely from its memory subsystem—4 GB of GDDR5 at 72.00 GB/s versus 1 GB of DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s—since the core compute specs (512 shaders, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 947.2 GFLOPS) are identical. The M360 also has higher clock speeds (900/925 MHz vs. no listed clocks), which likely contributes to its edge.

However, the R7 250 is not without merit. It is a desktop card with a defined 55 W TDP, single-slot design, and no external power connectors, making it a straightforward drop-in for low-power systems with a 250 W PSU. Its 168 mm length fits most cases. The R7 250’s nearest rivals include the GTX 1650, and it edges that card by 1.1%, showing it can hold its own against much newer budget parts. The M360, being a mobile chip, lacks any desktop installation details, so it is not a direct replacement for the R7 250 in a desktop build.

For raw compute performance, the M360 is the clear choice. For a desktop system requiring a low-profile, low-power card with known physical specs, the R7 250 is the only option with the necessary data. Neither card supports ray tracing or tensor cores, and both are end-of-life, so longevity is limited. The R7 250’s release date of 2013 makes it roughly 1.5 years older than the M360, but the M360’s mobile nature means they serve different use cases.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon R9 M360 wins on:

• Compute performance: 8.7% faster in OpenCL (8211 vs. 7557).
• Memory bandwidth: 72.00 GB/s vs. 28.80 GB/s, a 2.5x advantage.
• Memory capacity: 4 GB vs. 1 GB.
• Clock speeds: 900 MHz base / 925 MHz boost, while the R7 250 has none listed.
• Average benchmark score: 8129 vs. 7557.
• Percentile ranking: 42nd vs. 41st.
• Closer competition with higher-tier rivals: within 0.6% of GTX 950M and GTX 980.

AMD Radeon R7 250 wins on:

• Desktop usability: has a 168 mm length, single-slot design, and no power connectors.
• Power efficiency: 55 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU, which is defined in the data.
• Display outputs: includes 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.
• Physical specifications: fully documented dimensions and slot width, unlike the M360.
• Competitive edge over a modern rival: beats the GTX 1650 by 1.1%.
• Older release date (2013) may align with legacy system compatibility.

In practical terms, the M360 is the pick for any workload that stresses memory throughput, such as large dataset processing or texture-heavy compute tasks. The R7 250 is the pick for a builder who needs a known-quantity desktop card with minimal power draw and no external power requirement, accepting lower memory bandwidth and capacity. The data does not support the R7 250 for performance-critical tasks—the M360’s 8.7% lead in the only test is decisive—but the R7 250’s defined physical profile makes it the only viable choice for certain compact or low-budget desktop builds.