AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

AMD Radeon R7 Graphics and AMD Radeon R7 M360 are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions that, despite sharing a family name, deliver markedly different performance profiles depending on the workload. The data shows a split decision: the discrete R7 M360 takes the Geekbench OpenCL crown by a significant margin, while the integrated R7 Graphics counters with an even larger victory in Geekbench Vulkan. With both parts landing in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, neither is a powerhouse, but each has a distinct arena where it holds the advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking divergence appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R7 M360 posts a score of 4638 against the R7 Graphics’ 4015. That is a 13.4% deficit for the integrated part, a substantial gap that reflects the M360’s dedicated memory and higher clock speeds. The M360’s win here is not marginal; it is a clear, double-digit margin that puts it in a different performance class for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. This result aligns with the M360’s positioning as a discrete solution with its own 2 GB of DDR3 memory, whereas the R7 Graphics must rely on system-shared memory, which is a bottleneck in sustained compute tasks.

However, the tables turn dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics surges ahead with a score of 5980, compared to the M360’s 5223. That is a 14.5% advantage for the integrated part, essentially flipping the OpenCL result on its head. The Vulkan API, being lower-level and more efficient at leveraging raw hardware capabilities, appears to favor the R7 Graphics’ architecture or driver implementation. This is a notable outcome because it shows that the R7 Graphics is not simply a weaker sibling; it has a genuine strength in modern, low-overhead graphics APIs.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the two are nearly inseparable. The R7 Graphics averages 4998 across its two tests, while the M360 averages 4931. The difference is a mere 67 points, or roughly 1.4%, which is within the noise of synthetic benchmarking. This near-parity in average performance is reflected in their rival rankings. The R7 Graphics sits just 0.4% above the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (4979) and 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4970), while trailing the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018) by 0.4% and the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034) by 0.7%. The M360, meanwhile, is statistically tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929) at a 0% delta, and runs 0.6% ahead of both the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901), and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893).

The head-to-head record is a perfect 1-1 split, with each GPU claiming one decisive victory. This makes a simple "which is better" verdict impossible; the answer depends entirely on which API or workload is being considered. The M360’s OpenCL win is larger in relative terms, but the R7 Graphics’ Vulkan win is more impressive given that it comes from an integrated part with no dedicated video memory.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 4998, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M360’s 4931. The difference is approximately 1.4%, which is negligible in practical terms.

Q: How does the R7 M360 perform in OpenCL relative to the R7 Graphics?

A: The R7 M360 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively, scoring 4638 against the R7 Graphics’ 4015. This represents a 13.4% advantage for the M360, making it the clear choice for OpenCL compute tasks.

Q: Is the R7 Graphics better in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the R7 Graphics wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 5980, which is 14.5% higher than the M360’s 5223. This is a significant margin and indicates superior performance in Vulkan-based applications.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for these GPUs?

A: Both the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 are ranked in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are in the lower tier of overall performance.

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

A: The R7 Graphics is within 0.7% of its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (0.4% ahead), AMD Radeon R5 M430 (0.4% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (0.6% ahead). The M360 is within 0.8% of its rivals, including the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (tied) and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (0.8% ahead).

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has a higher pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s, compared to the R7 Graphics’ 5.760 GPixel/s. This is a 56% advantage for the M360, which contributes to its OpenCL performance lead.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the winner for any workload that relies on OpenCL. Its 13.4% lead in that benchmark is substantial and is backed by hardware advantages: it has a dedicated 2 GB memory pool with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the R7 Graphics must share system memory with the CPU. The M360 also has higher raw throughput numbers, including a pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s versus 5.760 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s versus 17.28 GTexel/s. For compute tasks, video encoding, or any application that uses OpenCL, the M360 is the stronger part.

The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics wins in the Vulkan arena, and it does so convincingly. A 14.5% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is not a fluke; it suggests that the integrated part’s architecture is better optimized for this modern API. Despite having no dedicated memory and lower clock speeds, the R7 Graphics manages to outperform the M360 in Vulkan, which is increasingly relevant for gaming and graphics-intensive applications. This makes the R7 Graphics the better choice for users running Vulkan-based games or software.

For general-purpose use, the two are essentially tied. The average benchmark scores differ by only 1.4%, and both sit in the 29th percentile of all GPUs. Neither part is competitive with modern discrete graphics cards, but the R7 Graphics offers a slight edge in average performance, which could translate to a marginally better experience in mixed workloads. The choice between them ultimately comes down to which API the user prioritizes.

Specification Differences

The most fundamental difference is that the R7 M360 is a discrete GPU with its own memory, while the R7 Graphics is an integrated graphics processor (IGP). The M360 features 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the R7 Graphics uses system-shared memory with bandwidth that is system-dependent. This gives the M360 a clear advantage in memory-bound tasks.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The R7 M360 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1125 MHz, with memory running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R7 Graphics has no listed base or boost clock, as its clocks are tied to the system’s power and thermal envelope. The M360’s higher clocks contribute to its superior fill rates and compute throughput.

The manufacturing details also diverge. The R7 Graphics uses a chip called "Spectre Lite" on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 245 mm² and 2,410 million transistors. The R7 M360 uses the "Meso" chip, also on 28 nm but from TSMC, with a smaller die size of 125 mm² and 1,550 million transistors. This makes the M360’s transistor density higher at 12.4M per mm², versus 9.8M per mm² for the R7 Graphics. The bus interface differs as well: the R7 Graphics is an IGP with no dedicated bus, while the M360 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

The R7 Graphics has a TDP of 25 W, while the M360 has no listed TDP, reflecting its variable power draw in mobile systems. The R7 Graphics’ display outputs are motherboard-dependent, whereas the M360 has no listed display outputs, as it would be paired with a system’s display logic. Both parts support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API support is identical.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The R7 Graphics is based on GCN 2.0, specifically from the Kaveri IGP generation, while the R7 M360 is based on GCN 3.0, from the Gem System (R7 M300) generation. This architectural gap is significant, as GCN 3.0 introduced several improvements over GCN 2.0, including better geometry processing and memory efficiency, which likely explains the M360’s OpenCL advantage.

The R7 Graphics uses a chip codenamed "Spectre Lite," which is part of the Kaveri APU line, integrating the GPU and CPU on the same die. The R7 M360 uses the "Meso" chip, a discrete mobile GPU. The transistor counts reflect this difference: the R7 Graphics has 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, while the M360 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The M360’s smaller die with fewer transistors is more efficient in terms of density, but the R7 Graphics’ larger die includes the CPU cores and other system components.

Both parts feature 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, so the core configuration is identical. The FP32 performance differs, however: the R7 Graphics delivers 553.0 GFLOPS, while the M360 delivers 864.0 GFLOPS, a 56% advantage for the M360. The M360 also lists FP16 performance at 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1), while the R7 Graphics has no FP16 rating. This raw compute advantage is a major factor in the M360’s OpenCL win.

The R7 Graphics is an IGP, meaning it shares power and thermal resources with the CPU, while the M360 is a discrete part with its own power management. The R7 Graphics’ predecessor is TeraScale 3 IGP, and its successor is GCN 3.0 IGP, while the M360’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. These lineage differences highlight the evolutionary step between the two, with the M360 representing a newer, more refined architecture despite being a lower-tier part.