AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

AMD Radeon R7 M260X and AMD Radeon R7 M360 are both end-of-life mobile GPUs from AMD’s Gem System generation, but they represent different architectural eras and target different performance profiles. The M260X, based on the Opal chip with GCN 1.0, posts a higher average benchmark score of 5161, while the M360, using the Meso chip with GCN 3.0, averages 4931. The data shows a split decision in direct tests: the M260X wins Geekbench OpenCL by a significant margin, while the M360 takes the Vulkan test. This page breaks down their architectural differences, head-to-head results, and where each GPU is the practical choice for a builder.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X leads with an average benchmark score of 5161, placing it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs. The R7 M360 trails with an average score of 4931, sitting in the 29th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The M260X wins decisively, scoring 5690 versus the M360’s 4638. This is a 22.7% advantage for the M260X, making it the stronger compute-focused performer in this specific API.

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The M360 takes the Vulkan test with a score of 5223, while the M260X scores 4631. The delta is -11.3% from the M260X’s perspective, meaning the M360 is about 11.3% faster here.

Q: What are the key memory differences between the two?

A: The M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M360 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, which results in a much lower 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do they have the same core configuration?

A: Yes, both GPUs feature 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. Despite this, their clock speeds and memory systems lead to different fill rates and compute outputs.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The M260X is built on the Opal chip using the GCN 1.0 architecture, while the M360 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0. This generational leap is significant. The M260X has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, whereas the M360 packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die. Interestingly, the transistor density remains nearly identical: 12.3M / mm² for the M260X and 12.4M / mm² for the M360, both fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process.

The M360’s architecture brings a notable feature: it supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, matching its FP32 output at 864.0 GFLOPS. The M260X has no listed FP16 capability and peaks at 549.1 GFLOPS FP32. This suggests the M360 can handle half-precision workloads more efficiently, a trait of its newer GCN 3.0 design.

Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The M260X runs at a base of 620 MHz with a boost of 715 MHz, while the M360 starts at 1100 MHz and boosts to 1125 MHz. This higher clock speed on the M360 directly contributes to its superior pixel and texture rates: 9.000 GPixel/s and 27.00 GTexel/s, versus the M260X’s 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The M260X uses faster GDDR5 memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) with a 128-bit bus, giving it a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The M360 steps down to DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, capping bandwidth at just 14.40 GB/s. This means the M360 has a 2 GB capacity advantage but suffers a 4.4x bandwidth deficit.

Power connectors differ as well: the M260X lists "None" as its power connector requirement, while the M360’s field is null. Both are mobile GPUs with no TDP listed, and both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their direct benchmark results, each winning one test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M260X is the clear victor with a score of 5690 against the M360’s 4638. This 22.7% lead is substantial and likely reflects the M260X’s higher memory bandwidth, which is critical for OpenCL compute workloads that frequently access large datasets.

The Vulkan test flips the script. Here, the M360 scores 5223, beating the M260X’s 4631. The delta is -11.3% from the M260X’s perspective, meaning the M360 is roughly 11.3% faster. This win is likely due to the M360’s higher clock speeds (1100 MHz base vs. 620 MHz) and newer architecture, which may handle Vulkan’s draw calls and command buffers more efficiently.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the M260X’s average score of 5161 places it near the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154, +0.1%) and slightly below the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, -1%). The M360’s average of 4931 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, +0.6%), though the latter is an outlier given its modern architecture. In practice, both GPUs sit in the same performance stratum, with the M260X having a slight edge in aggregate.

Specification Differences

The core compute configuration is identical: both have 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The differences emerge in clocks, memory, and architecture-specific features.

• Chip and Architecture: M260X uses Opal (GCN 1.0); M360 uses Meso (GCN 3.0).
• Transistors: M260X has 950 million; M360 has 1,550 million.
• Die Size: M260X is 77 mm²; M360 is 125 mm².
• Base Clock: M260X runs at 620 MHz; M360 at 1100 MHz.
• Boost Clock: M260X boosts to 715 MHz; M360 to 1125 MHz.
• Memory Size: M260X has 1024 MB; M360 has 2 GB.
• Memory Type: M260X uses GDDR5; M360 uses DDR3.
• Memory Bus: M260X has a 128-bit bus; M360 has a 64-bit bus.
• Memory Bandwidth: M260X delivers 64.00 GB/s; M360 delivers 14.40 GB/s.
• Pixel Rate: M260X is 5.720 GPixel/s; M360 is 9.000 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: M260X is 17.16 GTexel/s; M360 is 27.00 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: M260X is 549.1 GFLOPS; M360 is 864.0 GFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: M260X has none listed; M360 has 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1).
• DirectX Support: M260X supports 12 (11_1); M360 supports 12 (12_0).
• Power Connectors: M260X lists "None"; M360 has no listed value.
• Release Date: M260X launched on 2015-12-05; M360 on 2015-05-04.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon R7 M260X:

• Wins in Geekbench OpenCL by 22.7%, making it the better choice for compute-heavy tasks that rely on this API, such as certain rendering or physics simulations.
• Has 4.4x the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s), which is critical for texture streaming and large buffer operations.
• Uses GDDR5 memory, which offers lower latency and higher throughput compared to the M360’s DDR3.
• Its average benchmark score is 4.7% higher (5161 vs. 4931), indicating more consistent overall performance.

AMD Radeon R7 M360:

• Wins in Geekbench Vulkan by 11.3%, suggesting better driver optimization or architectural efficiency for modern graphics APIs.
• Has significantly higher clock speeds (1100 MHz base vs. 620 MHz), leading to superior pixel and texture fill rates (9.000 GPixel/s and 27.00 GTexel/s).
• Offers 2 GB of memory, double the M260X’s capacity, which helps with higher-resolution textures even if bandwidth is limited.
• Supports FP16 compute at full rate, a feature absent from the M260X, useful for AI inference or media processing tasks.
• Newer GCN 3.0 architecture with DirectX 12 (12_0) support, providing better feature parity with modern games.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for builders. If the priority is raw compute in OpenCL or memory bandwidth, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the stronger pick. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is unmatched by the M360, and its 22.7% OpenCL win shows it can move data fast. The M260X also edges out the M360 in average benchmark score (5161 vs. 4931), making it the more well-rounded performer for general tasks.

However, the AMD Radeon R7 M360 is not without merit. Its 11.3% Vulkan win indicates it handles modern graphics APIs better, and its higher clock speeds translate to better fill rates. The 2 GB frame buffer is a practical advantage for games that exceed 1 GB of VRAM usage, even if the DDR3 memory is slow. The M360’s FP16 support and DirectX 12 (12_0) make it more future-proof for specific workloads.

For a buyer choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the decision hinges on the workload. The M260X is the choice for compute and bandwidth-sensitive applications. The M360 wins for Vulkan-based gaming and tasks that need more memory capacity. Given the M260X’s higher average score and dominant OpenCL result, it holds the overall performance crown, but the M360’s architecture is newer and better suited to specific modern use cases.