AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs AMD Radeon R7 M440 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a clear, consistent victory for the AMD Radeon R7 M440 across both recorded workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M440 scores 5214 against the M360's 4638, a decisive 12.4% advantage. The Vulkan results follow the same pattern, with the M440 scoring 5751 and the M360 trailing at 5223, a 10.1% gap. In both cases, the M440 takes the win, making the head-to-head record 2 wins for the M440 and 0 for the M360.

The OpenCL delta is particularly meaningful because it represents the classic compute-heavy scenario. A 12.4% lead in this test places the M440 in a different performance tier for general-purpose GPU workloads, such as video encoding, image processing, or physics simulations. The Vulkan delta, while slightly smaller at 10.1%, still demonstrates a substantial advantage in graphics API workloads, which directly translates to gaming performance in titles that leverage Vulkan.

Context from the nearest rivals in the database reinforces the significance of this margin. The M440's average benchmark score of 5483 puts it within 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467) and within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon 610M (5444). It also sits just 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501) and 0.5% behind the GeForce MX130 (5508). This means the M440 is not merely faster than the M360; it operates in a competitive band with mobile GPUs that are generally considered more capable.

The M360, by contrast, with an average score of 4931, is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929, 0% delta) and sits 0.6% above the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901). It also lands 0.8% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893). The M360's placement among these rivals shows that its performance level is roughly one generation behind the M440 in practical terms.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same foundational architecture, which makes the performance gap particularly interesting. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 are both built on the GCN 3.0 architecture, use the Meso chip, and are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both have the same die size of 125 mm² and pack the same 1,550 million transistors, yielding an identical transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The shared silicon means the difference in performance comes down to how the chip is configured and clocked, not entirely a generational redesign.

The critical divergence is in the execution resources. The M360 fields 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operations units. The M440 scales these down to 320 shading units and 20 texture mapping units, while retaining 8 ROPs. On paper, the M360 has 20% more shading units and 20% more TMUs. Yet the measured performance tells the opposite story, which points to clock speed as the deciding factor.

The M360 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1125 MHz. The M440's clock data is not recorded in the database, but its performance output of 570.2 GFLOPS FP32, 17.82 GTexel/s texture rate, and 7.128 GPixel/s pixel rate, when divided by its 320 shading units and 20 TMUs, implies a higher effective operating frequency than the M360. The M360's theoretical peak of 864.0 GFLOPS FP32, 27.00 GTexel/s, and 9.000 GPixel/s is numerically higher, but the real-world benchmark results show the M440 winning. This suggests the M440 runs at a substantially higher clock in practice, enough to overcome a 64-shader deficit.

Memory configuration also differs. Both use DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and identical 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, but the M440 carries 4 GB while the M360 has 2 GB. The memory clock is the same at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The larger frame buffer on the M440 does not increase bandwidth, but it allows for higher resolution textures and larger datasets without spilling to system memory, which can matter in modern titles and compute workloads.

The release timeline shows the M360 arriving on 2015-05-04, while the M440 launched on 2016-05-14, a gap of just over one year. Both are marked end-of-life and share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M440 is noted as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the M360's slot width and display outputs are not recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 wins every recorded benchmark, so the more useful question is which workloads favor its specific strengths. Its 4 GB VRAM is the standout advantage for texture-heavy scenarios. In modern games with high-resolution texture packs, or in compute tasks that require large working sets, the extra 2 GB can prevent performance collapses from memory swapping. The M440's higher effective clock, implied by its FP32 output of 570.2 GFLOPS, also makes it the better choice for latency-sensitive workloads where raw throughput per cycle matters more than raw ALU count.

The M440's Vulkan score of 5751, which is 10.1% higher than the M360's 5223, indicates it handles API-level draw calls and command submission more efficiently. This translates to better frame pacing and higher average frame rates in Vulkan titles. Its OpenCL score of 5214, 12.4% above the M360, makes it the superior option for GPGPU tasks like video transcoding, Blender rendering, or Folding@home, where the database's compute benchmarks directly predict real-world throughput.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360, despite losing all benchmarks, has theoretical advantages that could matter in specific scenarios. Its 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, combined with a boost clock of 1125 MHz, give it a higher peak texture fill rate of 27.00 GTexel/s. In older DirectX 11 titles that are fill-rate bound and do not use large texture sets, the M360's extra TMUs could close the gap, though the recorded data does not include such a test. The M360's 864.0 GFLOPS FP32 peak is also higher on paper, which could in theory benefit compute workloads that are perfectly parallel and not memory-limited. However, the database shows no benchmark where this theoretical edge translates into a measured win.

The M360 also has a lower average benchmark score of 4931 compared to the M440's 5483, a difference of 552 points, or roughly 11%. This places the M360 in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the M440 sits in the 32nd percentile. For users who only care about the recorded metrics, the M360 has no winning scenario.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R7 M440 is the faster GPU by every measured metric. It wins OpenCL by 12.4% and Vulkan by 10.1%, holds a 552-point advantage in average benchmark score, and ranks in a higher percentile (32 versus 29). Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and GeForce GTX 765M, which are generally regarded as mid-range mobile parts, whereas the M360's rivals include the older R7 M265 and the GTS 450. This positioning alone tells the story: the M440 competes in a higher performance class.

The M440's 4 GB memory is another decisive factor for longevity. With the same 14.40 GB/s bandwidth and 64-bit bus as the M360's 2 GB, the M440 offers the same speed but double the capacity. For modern game installs and texture-heavy applications, this is the difference between playable and stuttering. The M360's 2 GB is increasingly inadequate for current software.

The only reason to choose the M360 over the M440 would be if the extra shading units and TMUs could be fully utilized in a specific legacy workload, but the recorded data provides no evidence this ever occurs. The M360's theoretical peak of 864.0 GFLOPS and 27.00 GTexel/s never translates into a benchmark win. The M440's higher effective clock and larger memory buffer dominate in practice.

For any user deciding between these two, the AMD Radeon R7 M440 is the clear recommendation. It delivers better compute performance, better graphics API performance, more memory, and a newer release date. The M360, while sharing the same architecture and silicon, is configured with more execution units but evidently clocks too low to use them effectively. The database records speak clearly: 2 wins for the M440, 0 for the M360.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5483 on average, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4931, a difference of 552 points in favor of the M440.

Q: How much faster is the M440 in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The M440 scores 5214 versus the M360's 4638, giving the M440 a 12.4% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same amount of video memory?

A: No. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 has 2 GB. Both use a 64-bit bus and have identical bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has 384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R7 M440 has 320. The M360 also has 24 texture mapping units versus the M440's 20. Despite this, the M440 wins all recorded benchmarks.

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on GCN 3.0 using the Meso chip, fabricated on a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,550 million transistors and a 125 mm² die size.

Q: Which GPU was released later?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 was released on 2016-05-14, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 was released on 2015-05-04.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M440 | AMD Radeon R7 M360 |

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

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2015-05-04 |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 1100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1125 MHz |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 20 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.128 GPixel/s | 9.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.82 GTexel/s | 27.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 570.2 GFLOPS | 864.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1) | 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| Slot Width | IGP | Not recorded |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Not recorded |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5483 | 4931 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 32 | 29 |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 5214 | 4638 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | 5751 | 5223 |

Shared specifications include the GCN 3.0 architecture, Meso chip, 28 nm TSMC process, 1,550 million transistors, 125 mm² die size, 12.4M/mm² transistor density, DDR3 memory type, 64-bit memory bus, 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, 900 MHz memory clock (1800 Mbps effective), 8 ROPs, PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 support. Both are end-of-life products with no recorded TDP, launch MSRP, or power connector requirements.