AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs AMD Radeon R7 M365X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split the two available benchmark tests exactly one win apiece, but the margins tell very different stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R7 M365X posts a score of 5939 against the M360's 4638, a decisive 28.1% advantage. That is not a narrow win; it is a substantial gap that places the M365X in a different performance tier for compute-heavy workloads. By comparison, the M360's victory in Geekbench Vulkan is far more modest: 5223 versus 4893, a 6.3% edge. So while the scoreboard reads 1-1, the magnitude of the M365X's OpenCL win outweighs the M360's Vulkan lead in practical terms.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this. The M365X's average benchmark score of 5416 sits just 0.5% below the AMD Radeon 610M (5444) and 0.9% above the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5370). It also trails the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467) by 0.9% and leads the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358) by 1.1%. The M360, in contrast, averages 4931, which is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929, deltaPct 0%) and within 0.8% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893). The M360's nearest rivals are all slower than the M365X's nearest rivals, which tells you these two chips are not competing in the same league despite sharing a name and generation.

Looking at the individual OpenCL numbers, the M365X's 5939 is roughly 28% higher than the M360's 4638. This aligns with the raw throughput figures: the M365X achieves 633.6 GFLOPS FP32, while the M360 reaches 864.0 GFLOPS. Wait—that seems contradictory. The M360 has higher FP32 throughput, yet scores lower in OpenCL. The explanation lies in memory architecture. The M365X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 over a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M360 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, producing just 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4.4x bandwidth deficit, and OpenCL workloads are often memory-bound. The M360's higher compute rate cannot compensate for the severe memory bottleneck.

The Vulkan result flips the script. The M360 scores 5223, beating the M365X's 4893 by 6.3%. Vulkan's lower-level API overhead and different workload characteristics may favor the M360's newer architecture, which we will examine shortly. But note that even in the M360's winning test, the margin is less than a quarter of the M365X's winning margin. For overall performance, the average benchmark score (5416 vs 4931) gives the M365X a 9.8% lead. The percentile ranking agrees: the M365X sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the M360 sits at the 29th.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X is the clear winner for OpenCL-based compute tasks. Its 28.1% advantage in that test is the single largest delta between the two cards. If your application uses OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing—think video encoding, physics simulations, or any number of scientific workloads—the M365X is the one to pick. The 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is the key enabler here; GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus provides four times the bandwidth of the M360's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. Even though the M360 has a higher theoretical FP32 throughput (864.0 GFLOPS vs 633.6 GFLOPS), the M365X's bandwidth advantage dominates in real-world OpenCL benchmarks.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins the Vulkan test by 6.3%. This is a meaningful but modest edge. The M360 also brings a more recent architecture (GCN 3.0 vs GCN 1.0), which may explain better driver optimization for modern APIs. Additionally, the M360 doubles the VRAM to 2 GB, which can help with texture-heavy loads in games that fit within its bandwidth constraints. However, the 14.40 GB/s bandwidth is a hard ceiling; any workload that streams large amounts of data will stall regardless of the 2 GB capacity.

For gaming, neither card is a standout. The M365X's average score of 5416 and the M360's 4931 place both in the low-to-mid range of the GPU hierarchy (32nd and 29th percentiles, respectively). The M365X's OpenCL dominance suggests it will handle compute-adjacent game effects better, while the M360's Vulkan edge hints at better performance in Vulkan-native titles. But the data does not support either as a serious gaming GPU by modern standards.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X is the better all-round GPU. It wins the higher-margin benchmark (28.1% in OpenCL), has a higher average benchmark score (5416 vs 4931), and ranks higher in the overall percentile (32nd vs 29th). Its nearest rivals are consistently faster than the M360's nearest rivals, confirming it belongs to a higher performance bracket. For anyone choosing between these two, the M365X is the default recommendation.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has exactly one argument in its favor: the 6.3% Vulkan win. If you have a specific workload that is Vulkan-bound and memory access patterns are favorable, the M360 might edge ahead. It also offers 2 GB of VRAM versus 1 GB, which can be a practical advantage for holding larger textures or datasets in local memory. But the 14.40 GB/s bandwidth means that memory will fill quickly and then become a bottleneck. The M360 is a niche pick; the M365X is the safe pick.

Strictly from the data, the verdict is straightforward: choose the M365X unless you have a specific reason to need Vulkan performance or double the VRAM capacity. The M365X's 28.1% OpenCL lead is too large to ignore, and its average score advantage of nearly 10% reflects a consistently faster card across the two tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X averages 5416, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 averages 4931. That is a 9.8% difference in favor of the M365X.

Q: How big is the M365X's win in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The M365X scores 5939 versus the M360's 4638, a 28.1% advantage. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any test.

Q: Does the M360 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the M360 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 5223 against the M365X's 4893, a 6.3% margin.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: The M365X's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 610M (5444, -0.5%), NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, -0.9%), Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5370, +0.9%), and AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, +1.1%). The M360's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929, 0%), AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, +0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, +0.6%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, +0.8%).

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The M365X has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The M360 has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The M365X has roughly 4.4 times the bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different GCN generations, which explains much of their behavioral divergence. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X uses the Litho chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 uses the Meso chip built on GCN 3.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ substantially: the M365X packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the M360 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical (12.3M/mm² vs 12.4M/mm²), so the M360's larger die is simply a bigger implementation of the newer architecture.

The M360's GCN 3.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M365X's GCN 1.0 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). This is a meaningful feature difference for modern API compatibility. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, so Vulkan is not a differentiator at the API level—yet the M360 still wins the Vulkan benchmark. The newer architecture likely has better scheduling or driver optimizations that manifest in Vulkan workloads.

The M360 also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (864.0 GFLOPS for both), while the M365X has no listed FP16 capability. This could be relevant for applications that use half-precision math. Both cards have the same core counts: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The architectural differences are therefore not in raw core counts but in the GCN generation, memory subsystem, and API feature level.

Another notable difference is the memory clock configuration. The M365X runs its GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the M360 runs its DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The M360's memory clock is lower, and its bus is half as wide (64-bit vs 128-bit), compounding the bandwidth disadvantage. The M360 does have a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1125 MHz, whereas the M365X has no listed base or boost clocks—only memory clocks are specified.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two cards differ, based on the available data.

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M365X | AMD Radeon R7 M360 |

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

| Chip | Litho | Meso |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 9.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 19.80 GTexel/s | 27.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 633.6 GFLOPS | 864.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 5939 | 4638 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 4893 | 5223 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5416 | 4931 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 32 | 29 |

Both cards share the same manufacturing process (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), shading units (384), TMUs (24), ROPs (8), OpenGL version (4.6), Vulkan version (1.2.170), release date (2015-05-04), production status (end-of-life), and generation (Gem System R7 M300). They also have no listed TDP, launch MSRP, or power connector information. The M360 has a base and boost clock; the M365X does not list any. These differences in memory and architecture are what drive the benchmark outcomes: the M365X wins on bandwidth, the M360 wins on raw compute rate and newer architecture.