AMD Radeon R7 M340 vs AMD Radeon R7 M360 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 and AMD Radeon R7 M360 are nearly identical twins, both built on the same Meso chip and GCN 3.0 architecture, yet the benchmark data reveals a fascinating split. The M340 secures a decisive win in OpenCL compute workloads, while the M360 counters with a marginal victory in Vulkan performance. With each card claiming exactly one head-to-head win, the choice between them hinges on which API workload matters more to the user, and the underlying clock and shader differences explain why the results are so closely contested.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the most striking divergence between these two GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M340 scores 4932, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 trails at 4638, giving the M340 a 6.3% advantage. This is a substantial gap for two cards from the same family, and it directly contradicts what the raw specifications might suggest. The M360 features more shading units and higher clock speeds, yet in this compute-heavy workload, the M340 pulls ahead decisively. The data indicates that raw shader count does not always translate to OpenCL superiority, possibly due to driver optimizations or memory subsystem behavior under load.

Switching to the Geekbench Vulkan test, the tables turn, though with a far narrower margin. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 5223, edging out the M340’s 5193, a delta of just -0.6% from the M340’s perspective. In practical terms, this difference is nearly imperceptible, falling well within run-to-run variance. However, it does establish the M360 as the more consistent performer in Vulkan-based applications. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the M340 averages 5063 across all tests, while the M360 averages 4931, a 2.7% overall gap favoring the M340, despite the Vulkan loss.

The M340’s OpenCL win is its most significant bragging right, placing it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the M360 sits at the 29th percentile. When examining nearest rivals, the M340 ties exactly with the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063, showing zero performance difference. The M360, meanwhile, matches the AMD Radeon R7 M265 at 4929, also with a 0% delta. This suggests both cards occupy the same performance tier, with the M340 holding a slight edge in aggregate compute tasks while the M360 excels in graphics API workloads.

Architecture Differences

At the silicon level, both the AMD Radeon R7 M340 and AMD Radeon R7 M360 are fundamentally identical. They share the Meso chip, built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is exactly 1,550 million, and the die size measures 125 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. These are not cosmetic similarities; they are the same physical hardware, differentiated only by configuration and clock speeds.

The core configuration, however, shows a meaningful divergence. The M360 packs 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. The M340 is trimmed down, offering 320 shading units and 20 TMUs, while keeping the same 8 ROPs. This 20% increase in shader and texture hardware for the M360 should theoretically provide a significant performance uplift, yet the benchmark results do not always reflect this advantage. The M360’s clock speeds also run higher, with a base of 1100 MHz and a boost of 1125 MHz, compared to the M340’s 943 MHz base and 1021 MHz boost.

Memory configurations show another subtle difference. Both cards use 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, but the M340 runs its memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s, while the M360 operates at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for 14.40 GB/s. The M340’s memory advantage of 11% in bandwidth could explain its OpenCL lead, as compute workloads often stress memory throughput more heavily than graphics tasks. The M360 compensates with higher core clocks, but the M340’s faster memory appears to tip the balance in certain scenarios.

Compute rates underscore the M360’s theoretical dominance. The M360 delivers 864.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the M340’s 653.4 GFLOPS, a 32% advantage. Texture fill rates follow suit, with the M360 hitting 27.00 GTexel/s versus 20.42 GTexel/s for the M340. Despite this, the M340 wins the OpenCL benchmark, suggesting that raw throughput numbers do not always predict real-world API performance. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, and they connect via PCIe 3.0 x8.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 is the clear winner for OpenCL compute workloads, as evidenced by its 6.3% lead in that benchmark. This makes it the preferable choice for applications that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, such as certain video encoding, physics simulations, or data processing tasks. Its higher memory bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s likely contributes to this advantage, as compute kernels frequently bottleneck on memory access rather than shader execution. The M340’s 4932 score in this test places it in solid company, matching the desktop AMD Radeon R7 240 exactly and edging out the AMD FirePro W4170M by 0.6%.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins in Vulkan graphics workloads, albeit by a razor-thin 0.6% margin. The 5223 Vulkan score suggests that its additional shading units and higher clock speeds provide a slight edge in modern graphics APIs that can better utilize the hardware. The M360 also benefits from a higher pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s versus 8.168 GPixel/s for the M340, which could matter in fill-rate-limited scenarios. For gaming or graphics applications built on Vulkan, the M360 is the technically superior choice, though the real-world difference is negligible.

The M340’s average benchmark score of 5063 versus the M360’s 4931 indicates that, on aggregate, the M340 is the more balanced performer. This is somewhat counterintuitive given the M360’s superior specifications, but the data does not lie. Users prioritizing compute tasks should gravitate toward the M340, while those focused on Vulkan-based graphics should consider the M360. Both cards are end-of-life products, released on the same date of 2015-05-04, so neither offers a longevity advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M340 is faster, scoring 4932 compared to the M360’s 4638, a 6.3% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M360 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the M360 wins the Vulkan test with a score of 5223 versus the M340’s 5193, though the margin is only 0.6%.

Q: How do the shading units compare between the two cards?

A: The M360 has 384 shading units, while the M340 has 320, giving the M360 a 20% increase in shader count.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The M340 offers 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the M360 provides 14.40 GB/s, making the M340 11% faster in this regard.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process with 1,550 million transistors.

Q: Do the cards have the same release date?

A: Yes, both the M340 and M360 were released on 2015-05-04 and are now end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a nuanced picture that defies simple specification comparison. The AMD Radeon R7 M340 should be the choice for users running OpenCL-heavy applications, as its 6.3% lead in that benchmark is the largest performance gap between the two cards. Its higher memory bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s appears to be the deciding factor, making it more efficient in compute tasks despite having fewer shading units and lower clock speeds. The M340’s average score of 5063 also places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the M360’s 29th percentile.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360, however, is the better pick for Vulkan-based workloads, where its 384 shading units and 1125 MHz boost clock eke out a 0.6% win. Its theoretical compute advantage of 864.0 GFLOPS makes it the more capable graphics processor on paper, and users who primarily engage with Vulkan games or applications will see marginally better performance. The M360’s nearest rival comparison is also instructive, as it ties with the AMD Radeon R7 M265 at 4929, while the M340 ties with the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063.

Neither card offers a decisive advantage across the board, and the data shows they are effectively peers in performance. The M340’s OpenCL dominance is the strongest argument for choosing it, while the M360’s Vulkan win is too small to be a deciding factor on its own. For most users, the M340’s superior average score and memory bandwidth make it the safer recommendation, but those locked into Vulkan ecosystems should not overlook the M360. Both cards are end-of-life, so availability and driver support are equal concerns.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M340 | AMD Radeon R7 M360 |

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

| Base Clock | 943 MHz | 1100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1021 MHz | 1125 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 20 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.168 GPixel/s | 9.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.42 GTexel/s | 27.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 653.4 GFLOPS | 864.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 4932 | 4638 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | 5193 | 5223 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5063 | 4931 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 30 | 29 |

The two cards share identical memory size (2 GB), type (DDR3), bus width (64 bit), ROP count (8), process node (28 nm), transistor count (1,550 million), die size (125 mm²), and API support (DirectX 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170). The M360’s higher clocks and shader count are offset by the M340’s faster memory, resulting in the split benchmark results documented above.