AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon R7 M360 and the AMD Radeon R7 M260 is a close split, with each card taking one of the two recorded tests. The most decisive result appears in the Geekbench OpenCL workload, where the R7 M360 posts a score of 4638 against the R7 M260’s 3708. That is a 25.1% advantage for the M360, a substantial margin that indicates a clear lead in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. This is the single largest performance gap between these two parts in the database, and it suggests that the M360’s higher clock speeds translate directly into meaningful throughput gains in this type of workload.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. Here, the R7 M260 scores 5289, narrowly edging out the R7 M360’s 5223. The delta is only 1.2% in favor of the M260, which is within the range of run-to-run variance for many GPUs. Still, the recorded data shows the M260 as the winner in this specific API, and it is notably the M260’s Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score by a significant amount, while the M360’s scores are much closer together across the two APIs. This could indicate that the M260 has better driver optimization or hardware scheduling for Vulkan’s explicit multi-threading model, at least as measured by Geekbench.

Looking at the broader context, the M360’s average benchmark score across all tests is 4931, placing it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The M260’s average is 4499, which puts it in the 26th percentile. The M360’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R7 M265 at an average score of 4929 (a 0% delta, essentially tied), the AMD FirePro W5130M at 4904 (0.6% ahead of the M360), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901 (0.6% ahead). Interestingly, the M360 also sits just 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, which scores 4893. This places the M360 in a tight cluster of mid-range performance that spans both older and newer architectures.

The M260’s nearest rivals are similarly close. The AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505, which is 0.1% behind the M260. The Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4560, putting it 1.3% behind the M260. The AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 4569, 1.5% behind, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577, 1.7% behind. So while the M260 loses the OpenCL matchup badly, it is competitive with a broad swath of other entry-level and mid-range parts in average terms, often within a couple of percentage points. The M360, by contrast, sits in a slightly higher performance tier, roughly 9.6% ahead of the M260 in average benchmark score (4931 versus 4499).

Where Each One Wins

The clearest use-case split comes from the two benchmark types. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the pick for compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL. Its 25.1% lead over the M260 in that test is not a small edge; it is the kind of margin that shows up in real-world applications such as video encoding, image processing, or any GPU-accelerated task that uses OpenCL kernels. The M360’s higher base and boost clocks (1100 MHz base, 1125 MHz boost versus the M260’s 940 MHz base, 980 MHz boost) give it a raw throughput advantage that is directly visible in the pixel rate and texture rate figures. The M360 outputs 9.000 GPixel/s and 27.00 GTexel/s, while the M260 manages 7.840 GPixel/s and 23.52 GTexel/s. That is an 14.8% lead in pixel rate and a 14.8% lead in texture rate, which aligns with the OpenCL gap.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260, on the other hand, wins the Vulkan test by a small margin. For users who specifically run Vulkan-based applications, such as certain modern games or emulators, the M260’s 5289 score versus the M360’s 5223 is the relevant metric. The difference is small, so in practice most users would not notice a performance difference in Vulkan titles, but the data does record a win for the M260. It is also importantly the M260’s average score of 4499 is lower, so this Vulkan advantage does not translate into an overall win. The M260 is the better choice only if the software stack is exclusively Vulkan; otherwise, the M360’s OpenCL dominance and higher average score make it the stronger all-rounder.

In terms of raw specifications, the two cards are nearly identical in memory configuration: both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The shading units (384), TMUs (24), and ROPs (8) are also identical. The difference is entirely in clocks and the resulting fill rates and compute throughput. The M360’s FP32 performance is 864.0 GFLOPS, while the M260 is 752.6 GFLOPS, a 14.8% difference that matches the clock ratio. So for any workload that scales with shader clock, the M360 wins by a consistent margin. The M260 only wins where software behavior favors its particular implementation, as seen in Vulkan.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GCN 3.0 architecture and use the same 28 nm process node from TSMC. Both have a transistor count of 1,550 million on a die size of 125 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The chip names differ: the R7 M360 uses the Meso chip, while the R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip. Despite the different chip names, the core configuration is identical: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, which is expected for this generation. The API support is also identical: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The key architectural difference, then, is not in the feature set but in the clock behavior. The R7 M360 runs at a base clock of 1100 MHz and boosts to 1125 MHz, while the R7 M260 runs at 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost. That is a 17% higher base clock and a 14.8% higher boost clock for the M360. Memory clocks are the same: 900 MHz, which translates to 1800 Mbps effective on both cards. The bus interface is also identical, PCIe 3.0 x8. The production status for both is end-of-life, and both share the same predecessor (Solar System) and successor (Polaris Mobile) in the database. The release dates differ slightly, with the R7 M260 released on June 10, 2014, and the R7 M360 released on May 4, 2015, but that is a minor timeline difference.

What this means in practice is that the M360 is essentially a higher-binned or higher-clock variant of the same underlying GPU design. The Meso and Topaz chips may have minor differences in power delivery or thermal characteristics, but the recorded data shows no difference in memory bandwidth, memory type, or core count. The only meaningful architectural distinction in the database is the clock speed, which drives all the performance deltas. The M260’s Vulkan win is not explained by any architectural feature listed here, so it is likely a driver or workload-specific effect rather than a hardware difference.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has an average benchmark score of 4931, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s average of 4499. This places the M360 in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the M260 sits in the 26th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the R7 M360 in OpenCL?

A: The R7 M360 scores 4638 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R7 M260 scores 3708. That is a 25.1% advantage for the M360, which is the largest recorded performance difference between the two cards.

Q: Does the R7 M260 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the R7 M260 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 5289, compared to the R7 M360’s 5223. The margin is 1.2%, which is small but still a recorded win.

Q: Are the memory configurations the same?

A: Yes, both GPUs have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is also identical at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The R7 M360 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1125 MHz. The R7 M260 has a base clock of 940 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz. The M360’s boost clock is 14.8% higher.

Q: Which GPU is better for Vulkan-based applications?

A: Based on the recorded data, the R7 M260 has a slight edge in Vulkan, with a score of 5289 versus the M360’s 5223. However, the difference is only 1.2%, so it is unlikely to be noticeable in most real-world scenarios.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon R7 M360 as the stronger overall GPU. Its average benchmark score of 4931 is 9.6% higher than the M260’s 4499, and it wins the OpenCL test by a commanding 25.1%. The M360 also has higher pixel and texture rates, and higher FP32 throughput, all of which come from its higher clocks. For users who run a mix of compute and graphics workloads, the M360 is the clear choice.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 is not without merit. Its Vulkan score is higher, and for anyone whose software is strictly Vulkan-based, the M260’s 5289 versus the M360’s 5223 is a real, if narrow, advantage. The M260 is also the older release, dating to June 2014 compared to May 2015 for the M360, but that does not affect performance. If a system already has an M260, there is no reason to upgrade to the M360 for Vulkan alone; the difference is negligible. But for a new purchase or a system where OpenCL compute matters, the M360 is the better investment.

Neither card is a performance powerhouse by modern standards. Both sit below the 30th percentile in the database, and both are end-of-life products. The M360’s nearest rivals include the R7 M265 and the FirePro W5130M, all within a percentage point, so it is not a unique performer. The M260’s rivals include the RX 560 and the R5 M230, also within a couple of points. In short, the M360 is the faster part, the M260 has a niche Vulkan advantage, and both are entry-level mobile GPUs that are best suited for light gaming and basic compute tasks.

Specification Differences

The only fields where these two GPUs differ in the database are the chip name, generation, release date, clock speeds, and the derived performance metrics. The chip for the R7 M360 is Meso, while the R7 M260 uses Topaz. The generation field lists the M360 as “Gem System (R7 M300)” and the M260 as “Gem System (R7 M200)”. The release date for the M360 is May 4, 2015, while the M260 was released on June 10, 2014. Base clocks are 1100 MHz versus 940 MHz, and boost clocks are 1125 MHz versus 980 MHz. The pixel rate is 9.000 GPixel/s for the M360 and 7.840 GPixel/s for the M260. Texture rate is 27.00 GTexel/s versus 23.52 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 864.0 GFLOPS versus 752.6 GFLOPS, and FP16 is identical in ratio to FP32 on both (1:1). All other specifications, including process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, memory size, type, bus width, bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, bus interface, API support, and production status, are identical. The M360 has a higher average benchmark score (4931 versus 4499) and a higher percentile rank (29th versus 26th), while the M260 has a higher Vulkan score (5289 versus 5223).