AMD Radeon R7 350 vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 and AMD Radeon R7 350 are both end-of-life, 28 nm GPUs from AMD built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, but the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy between them. Across the two available Geekbench tests, the R9 M360 wins both, yet the margins are not uniform, and the architectural and physical specifications show both shared foundations and distinct implementation choices.

Where Each One Wins

The data presents a straightforward split: the AMD Radeon R9 M360 wins in both benchmark categories, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 does not secure a single victory. The R9 M360’s advantage is most pronounced in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 8047 against the R7 350’s 7057, a 14% delta. This suggests the R9 M360 has a more substantial edge when operating through a lower-level, modern graphics API, likely benefiting from its higher clock speeds and overall throughput in compute-heavy workloads.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R9 M360 again leads, posting 8211 versus 7792 for the R7 350, but the margin narrows to 5.4%. This closer gap in OpenCL indicates that while the R9 M360 is consistently faster, the R7 350 is relatively more competitive in this particular workload. The R7 350’s stronger relative showing in OpenCL compared to Vulkan is notable, as it suggests the card’s performance scaling is less favorable when moving to a more modern API.

For users prioritizing Vulkan-based applications or games, the R9 M360 is the clear choice based on the 14% lead. For OpenCL compute tasks, the R9 M360 remains ahead, but the smaller 5.4% margin means the R7 350 is not entirely outclassed. The R9 M360 also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs at 42, compared to the R7 350’s 40, and its average benchmark score of 8129 substantially exceeds the R7 350’s 7425.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture and are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. They also have identical transistor counts of 1,500 million and die sizes of 123 mm², yielding the same transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The underlying chip names differ: the R9 M360 uses "Tropo," while the R7 350 uses "Cape Verde," but both belong to the same architectural family.

The core configurations are also identical in count. Each GPU features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. Memory subsystems match in type and bus width, with both using GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit interface, delivering the same 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory clock speeds are also the same at 1125 MHz, with 4.5 Gbps effective.

The critical architectural divergence lies in clock speeds and resulting throughput. The R9 M360 has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz, while the R7 350 has no listed base or boost clocks. This clock advantage for the R9 M360 translates directly into higher fill rates and compute performance. The R9 M360 achieves a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s, whereas the R7 350 manages only 12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 compute follows the same pattern, with the R9 M360 delivering 947.2 GFLOPS versus the R7 350’s 819.2 GFLOPS.

The R7 350 does have some specification advantages in physical attributes. It is a single-slot card with a 55 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. Its length is listed at 168 mm (6.6 inches). The R9 M360 has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, suggested PSU, or dimensions. The R7 350 also lists display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the R9 M360 has none specified.

Both cards share the same API support, including DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9 M360 belongs to the Gem System (R9 M300) generation, while the R7 350 is part of the Pirate Islands (R7 300) generation. Their release dates differ, with the R9 M360 launching on May 4, 2015, and the R7 350 on July 5, 2016.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the R9 M360 scoring 8211 against the R7 350’s 7792, a 5.4% advantage. This is the closer of the two contests, and it aligns with the R9 M360’s higher clock speeds delivering a modest but consistent edge in general-purpose compute. The 5.4% delta is smaller than the raw clock difference might suggest, indicating that the OpenCL workload is not purely clock-bound and that the R7 350’s identical core count and memory bandwidth help it stay within striking distance.

The Geekbench Vulkan test presents a much larger gap. The R9 M360 scores 8047, while the R7 350 trails at 7057, resulting in a 14% delta. This is more than double the OpenCL margin. The Vulkan result suggests that the R9 M360’s higher clocks are more fully utilized in a lower-overhead API environment, where the GPU’s raw throughput becomes the limiting factor rather than driver or API overhead. The R7 350’s 7057 Vulkan score is also notably lower than its 7792 OpenCL score, a drop of about 9.4%, whereas the R9 M360’s Vulkan score of 8047 is only about 2% below its OpenCL result. This divergence in API scaling is a key differentiator.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the R9 M360’s overall superiority. The R9 M360 posts an average of 8129, while the R7 350 averages 7425, a difference of roughly 9.5%. In terms of nearest rivals, the R9 M360 sits close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, with a deltaPct of -0.1, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, at -0.5. The R7 350’s nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at -0.2 and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at -0.3, placing it in a lower performance tier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R9 M360 is the faster GPU in every measured category. For any user choosing between these two based purely on performance, the R9 M360 is the correct pick. Its 5.4% lead in OpenCL and 14% lead in Vulkan make it the superior option for both compute and modern API workloads.

The R7 350, however, is not without its merits for specific use cases. It is a single-slot, low-power card with a 55 W TDP and no external power connectors, making it easier to install in compact systems with modest power supplies. Its 2 GB of memory is half of the R9 M360’s 4 GB, which could be a limiting factor in memory-intensive applications, but for basic display output and light compute, it may suffice.

Users who prioritize maximum performance in GPU-accelerated tasks, particularly those using Vulkan, should select the R9 M360. The 14% Vulkan advantage is significant and suggests better longevity for modern applications. Users who need a simple, low-profile card with minimal power requirements and are willing to accept lower performance may find the R7 350 adequate, but the data shows they will be leaving substantial performance on the table. The R9 M360’s higher percentile ranking (42 vs. 40) and higher average score (8129 vs. 7425) confirm it as the stronger overall product.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M360 has an average benchmark score of 8129, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 350’s 7425.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The R9 M360 scores 8047, while the R7 350 scores 7057, giving the R9 M360 a 14% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both the R9 M360 and the R7 350 have a memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s, using GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The R9 M360 has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, while the R7 350 has a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the TDP of the R7 350?

A: The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Are the shading unit counts the same on both GPUs?

A: Yes, both the R9 M360 and the R7 350 feature 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M360 | AMD Radeon R7 350 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Tropo | Cape Verde |

| Generation | Gem System (R9 M300) | Pirate Islands (R7 300) |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 925 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Pixel Rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 12.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 29.60 GTexel/s | 25.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 947.2 GFLOPS | 819.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Length | Not listed | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Release Date | May 4, 2015 | July 5, 2016 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Volcanic Islands |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Arctic Islands |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 8211 | 7792 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | 8047 | 7057 |

| Percentile vs. All GPUs | 42 | 40 |