AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs AMD Radeon R7 M365X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X and AMD Radeon R7 Graphics are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the same vendor, yet benchmark results reveal they are not interchangeable. The M365X, a discrete part, and the R7 Graphics, an integrated processor graphics unit, split their two head-to-head benchmark wins almost perfectly, with a 47.9% victory for one and an 18.2% reversal for the other. This data suggests that the choice between them depends heavily on the specific workload, with the discrete card dominating in one API while the integrated solution counters in the other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking divergence appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5,939 against the R7 Graphics' 4,015. That is a delta of 47.9%, meaning the M365X is nearly half again as fast in this compute-oriented API. The margin is substantial enough to shift the M365X's average benchmark score to 5,416, which places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 610M, scores 5,444, a mere 0.5% difference, indicating that the M365X sits in a tightly contested performance tier. The M365X also edges out the Intel UHD Graphics P630 by 0.9% (5,370) and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 by 1.1% (5,358), while trailing the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 by 0.9% (5,467). These are all narrow margins, yet the OpenCL win over the R7 Graphics is anything but narrow.

The tables turn completely in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 5,980, beating the M365X's 4,893 by 18.2%. This is a surprising inversion, as the R7 Graphics is an IGP with system-shared memory, while the M365X has dedicated GDDR5. The R7 Graphics' Vulkan score is not just a win; it is a decisive one that pulls its average benchmark score to 4,998, placing it in the 29th percentile. Within its own rival set, the R7 Graphics sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (4,979), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5,018), and the AMD FirePro W4170M (5,034). Interestingly, the rival list also includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB at 4,970, just 0.6% behind the R7 Graphics, which shows that in this specific Vulkan workload, the old IGP is competitive with a much newer discrete card.

The data points to a clear pattern: the M365X excels in OpenCL, while the R7 Graphics excels in Vulkan. The 47.9% OpenCL delta is more than double the 18.2% Vulkan delta, suggesting the M365X's advantage in the former is larger than the R7 Graphics' advantage in the latter. When averaging the two scores, the M365X comes out ahead at 5,416 versus 4,998, a difference of 418 points or roughly 8.4%. This average, however, masks the fact that each GPU has a definitive preferred API. The M365X's average is also closer to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 610M, than the R7 Graphics is to its closest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X wins decisively with a score of 5,939 against the R7 Graphics' 4,015, a delta of 47.9%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics ever beat the M365X?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, the R7 Graphics scores 5,980 versus the M365X's 4,893, giving it an 18.2% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The M365X has an average benchmark score of 5,416, while the R7 Graphics averages 4,998.

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

A: The M365X is 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon 610M and 0.9% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics P630. The R7 Graphics is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB.

Q: Are both GPUs from the same architecture family?

A: No, the M365X uses GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R7 Graphics uses GCN 2.0 architecture.

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The M365X uses 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the R7 Graphics uses system-shared memory with a bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

The Verdict

The data does not support a single outright winner; it supports two distinct winners for two distinct tasks. If the workload is OpenCL-based, the AMD Radeon R7 M365X is the clear choice, offering a 47.9% performance lead over the R7 Graphics. This is a massive margin that dwarfs any other comparison in the data. The M365X also holds a higher average benchmark score (5,416 vs 4,998) and a higher percentile rank (32nd vs 29th), making it the stronger overall performer when both benchmarks are weighted equally.

However, for Vulkan-based applications, the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics is the superior part. Its 5,980 Vulkan score is the highest single benchmark result in the entire head-to-head comparison, and it even puts the IGP within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, a far newer and more powerful discrete card by any conventional measure. Users who prioritize Vulkan performance should not dismiss the integrated solution.

The M365X is for those who need consistent compute throughput in OpenCL and want the reliability of dedicated memory. The R7 Graphics is for those whose software stack leans on Vulkan, where it demonstrates an unexpected strength. The average scores tell the story of a narrow overall edge for the M365X, but the per-test deltas tell a story of specialization. Neither GPU is a jack-of-all-trades; each is a master of one.

Specification Differences

The most fundamental difference lies in the memory subsystem. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X features 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus width, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics, being an IGP, uses "System Shared" memory for its size, type, and bus width, with bandwidth rated as "System Dependent." This is a critical distinction, as the M365X's fixed memory allocation ensures predictable performance, whereas the R7 Graphics' performance can vary based on the host system's RAM speed and capacity.

The two GPUs also differ in their physical and power characteristics. The M365X has no listed TDP or slot width, suggesting it is a discrete mobile chip. The R7 Graphics is explicitly listed with a TDP of 25 W and a slot width of "IGP," confirming its integrated nature. The M365X uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, while the R7 Graphics uses "IGP" as its bus interface. Display outputs are not specified for the M365X, but the R7 Graphics lists "Motherboard Dependent" outputs, which is typical for integrated graphics.

Clock specifications also diverge. The M365X has a memory clock of 1000 MHz, equivalent to 4 Gbps effective. The R7 Graphics has no memory clock listed, again due to its shared memory architecture. Additionally, the M365X is fabricated by TSMC, while the R7 Graphics is fabricated by GlobalFoundries, despite both using a 28 nm process node. The M365X has a transistor count of 950 million on a 77 mm² die, while the R7 Graphics has 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, reflecting its integration with a CPU.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear: the AMD Radeon R7 M365X is built on GCN 1.0, while the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics is built on GCN 2.0. This generational gap is notable, as GCN 2.0 introduced improvements over the original GCN design, even though both share the same fundamental shader core layout. The M365X uses the "Litho" chip, while the R7 Graphics uses "Spectre Lite," and the R7 Graphics belongs to the "GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri)" generation, which ties it to a specific APU family.

Both GPUs have identical shader configurations: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. However, the pixel rate and texture rate differ slightly. The M365X has a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s, while the R7 Graphics lags slightly at 5.760 GPixel/s and 17.28 GTexel/s. This translates to a higher FP32 performance for the M365X at 633.6 GFLOPS versus the R7 Graphics' 553.0 GFLOPS, a 14.6% difference.

The API support also differs. The M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0), indicating the latter has a more complete implementation of DirectX 12 features. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 Graphics has a significantly larger transistor count (2,410 million vs 950 million) and die size (245 mm² vs 77 mm²), but a lower transistor density (9.8M / mm² vs 12.3M / mm²), which reflects the different foundry processes and design goals.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X wins in OpenCL workloads. The 47.9% delta in that benchmark is the single largest performance gap in the comparison, and it aligns with the M365X's higher FP32 throughput (633.6 GFLOPS vs 553.0 GFLOPS) and dedicated memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs System Dependent). The M365X also wins on overall average score (5,416 vs 4,998) and percentile rank (32nd vs 29th), making it the better choice for general-purpose compute tasks that rely on OpenCL. Its GDDR5 memory with a fixed 128-bit bus provides consistent performance, which is valuable in scenarios where memory bandwidth is a bottleneck.

The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics wins in Vulkan workloads. Its score of 5,980 is not only higher than the M365X's 4,893 by 18.2%, but it also places the IGP in the same performance neighborhood as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which is remarkable given the generational and architectural differences. The R7 Graphics' GCN 2.0 architecture and full DirectX 12 (12_0) support suggest it has better driver optimization for modern APIs like Vulkan. This makes it the preferable option for users running Vulkan-based games or applications, despite its lack of dedicated memory.

In practical terms, the M365X is the safer choice for legacy OpenCL compute and older gaming titles that predate Vulkan. The R7 Graphics is the better pick for newer workloads that leverage Vulkan's lower overhead and explicit control. The data shows a clean split: one GPU dominates in one API, the other dominates in the other, and the average scores merely reflect an aggregate that may not match any real-world usage pattern. Users should identify their primary API and choose accordingly, rather than relying on the overall average.