AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs AMD Radeon R7 M370 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M370 and AMD Radeon R7 M350 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, released on the same date and built by TSMC. Despite sharing a manufacturer, generation, and 28 nm process node, the data reveals two distinctly different designs with contrasting architectural priorities. The benchmark results show a clear overall winner, but the specifics of why the M370 leads are rooted in substantial differences in memory configuration, shader architecture, and API support, making this a more nuanced comparison than the final score tally suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is remarkably one-sided, with the AMD Radeon R7 M370 winning both of the recorded tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M370 scores 7063 against the M350’s 6991, a narrow delta of just 1%. This is a close result, indicating that in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the two GPUs are nearly interchangeable. The M350’s higher boost clock (1015 MHz vs 960 MHz) and superior FP32 throughput (779.5 GFLOPS vs 737.3 GFLOPS) appear to offset the M370’s memory advantages in this specific test, resulting in a virtual tie.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a very different story. Here, the M370 scores 6465, while the M350 manages only 5662. This represents a massive 14.2% delta in favor of the M370, which is a decisive margin. This is the single biggest win in the head-to-head comparison and is far more significant than the 1% OpenCL difference. The Vulkan result suggests that the M370 is substantially better at handling the modern, low-overhead graphics API, which is a critical factor for gaming and graphics-intensive applications. The M350’s performance drops off sharply in this test, indicating a potential bottleneck in its memory subsystem or driver optimization for Vulkan workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the M370’s average benchmark score of 6764 places it in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the M350’s average of 6327 lands it in the 36th percentile. This two-percentile gap reinforces the head-to-head results, showing that the M370 is not just winning the specific tests but is also generally faster across a wider range of synthetic benchmarks. The M370’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M5100 (avg score 6830, delta -1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (avg score 6946, delta -2.6%), placing it in the company of older mid-range desktop and professional parts. The M350, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (avg score 6330, delta 0%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (avg score 6282, delta 0.7%), suggesting it is more aligned with entry-level workstation performance. The data makes it clear that while both cards are in a similar performance tier, the M370 consistently edges ahead, with its Vulkan advantage being the defining factor.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon R7 M370 is the superior choice for any user prioritizing graphics performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, including a commanding 14.2% lead in Vulkan, and holds a higher average benchmark score (6764 vs 6327). For gaming or any application that leverages the Vulkan API, the M370 is unequivocally the better option. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 57.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a stark contrast to the M350’s 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with only 16.00 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage is the most plausible explanation for the M370’s Vulkan dominance, as modern game workloads are often memory-bandwidth sensitive.

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 is not without its merits, but they are not in the field of raw graphics performance. Its 4 GB of memory is double that of the M370, which could be an advantage for users running compute workloads that require large datasets to fit in VRAM, even if the memory is slower. Its FP32 performance is also slightly higher (779.5 GFLOPS vs 737.3 GFLOPS), and it offers FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio, a feature the M370 does not specify. This makes the M350 a potential choice for compute-oriented tasks that are not bandwidth-limited. However, for the vast majority of users, the M370’s superior benchmark results, particularly in Vulkan, make it the clear recommendation. The M350’s architectural advantage in compute does not translate into wins in the provided tests, meaning the M370’s graphics-centric design wins the day.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 has a higher average benchmark score of 6764, compared to the M350’s 6327, placing it in the 38th percentile versus the M350’s 36th.

Q: How significant is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The M370 scores 6465 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which is 14.2% higher than the M350’s score of 5662, making it the largest performance difference in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Does the M350 have any performance advantage over the M370 in the provided benchmarks?

A: No, the M350 does not win any of the head-to-head benchmarks. It comes closest in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it trails the M370 by only 1% (6991 vs 7063).

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The M370 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 57.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card offers better support for modern graphics APIs?

A: The M370 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ significantly in several key specifications. The M370 is built on the Litho chip, while the M350 uses the Meso chip. The M350 has a larger die size of 125 mm² compared to the M370’s 77 mm², and contains 1,550 million transistors versus 950 million. The M350 also has higher clocks, with a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1015 MHz, compared to the M370’s 875 MHz base and 960 MHz boost. Memory is a major differentiator: the M370 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the M350 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. This results in a substantial bandwidth advantage for the M370, which offers 57.60 GB/s versus the M350’s 16.00 GB/s.

The FP32 compute output is slightly higher on the M350 at 779.5 GFLOPS, compared to the M370’s 737.3 GFLOPS. The M350 also lists FP16 performance at 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1), a figure not provided for the M370. Pixel and texture rates are also marginally higher on the M350, at 8.120 GPixel/s and 24.36 GTexel/s, respectively, versus the M370’s 7.680 GPixel/s and 23.04 GTexel/s. Finally, the DirectX support differs, with the M370 supporting version 12 (11_1) and the M350 supporting version 12 (12_0).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial, despite their shared GCN lineage. The M370 is based on GCN 1.0 architecture, while the M350 is based on the newer GCN 3.0 architecture. This generational leap is reflected in the chip design, with the M370 using the Litho chip and the M350 using the Meso chip. The M350’s more advanced architecture is evident in its higher transistor count (1,550 million vs 950 million) and larger die size (125 mm² vs 77 mm²), which allows for more complex functional units and features.

Both cards have the same core configuration of 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. However, the newer GCN 3.0 architecture in the M350 brings architectural improvements that are not immediately visible in the core counts. The M350’s support for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio suggests a more modern compute pipeline, while its higher clocks (1000/1015 MHz vs 875/960 MHz) indicate a more efficient design. The M370’s advantage lies not in its older architecture, but in its memory subsystem. The use of GDDR5 on a wider 128-bit bus provides a massive bandwidth advantage (57.60 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s) that is critical for graphics workloads. The data suggests that the M350 has the more advanced and capable processor, but its memory configuration severely hampers its real-world graphics performance.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R7 M370 wins in the vast majority of use cases. Its decisive 14.2% victory in the Geekbench Vulkan test makes it the clear choice for any application that uses the Vulkan API, which includes a growing number of modern games and professional graphics tools. Its higher average benchmark score (6764 vs 6327) also suggests it is generally faster across a broader range of compute and graphics tasks. The M370’s superior memory bandwidth is its key asset, making it better suited for gaming, texture-heavy workloads, and high-resolution rendering.

The AMD Radeon R7 M350’s wins are more theoretical than practical. It does not win any of the provided benchmarks, so its advantages must be inferred from its specifications. Its 4 GB of VRAM makes it a better candidate for compute tasks that require large memory buffers, such as machine learning inference or large data set processing, where the slower DDR3 speed may be less of a bottleneck. Its slightly higher FP32 and FP16 compute rates (779.5 GFLOPS for both) also make it a nominally stronger candidate for pure compute workloads that are not memory-bound. However, these are niche scenarios. In any graphics-focused task, the data clearly indicates the M370 is the superior performer. The M350’s architectural advantages are undermined by its memory subsystem, making it a less compelling choice for the typical mobile GPU user.