AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs AMD Radeon Vega 3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner between these two AMD parts, with the Radeon R7 M360 taking both head-to-head benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 M360 scores 4638 against the Vega 3's 3963, a 17% advantage. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the R7 M360 posts 5223 versus 3961, a 31.9% lead. These are substantial margins for a mobile-class comparison, and they tell a story of two very different graphics implementations.

The Vulkan result is particularly notable. A 31.9% delta in that workload suggests the R7 M360's architecture handles modern API overhead more efficiently, or at least has enough raw throughput to pull ahead decisively. The OpenCL result, while narrower, still favors the discrete card by a comfortable margin. The average benchmark score reflects the same ordering: the R7 M360 sits at 4931, while the Vega 3 lands at 4268, a difference of roughly 15%.

Context matters here. The R7 M360 sits at the 29th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Vega 3 sits at the 25th. Both are low-end parts, but the R7 M360 consistently ranks above its integrated competitor. The nearest rival data reinforces this placement. The R7 M360's closest competitor is the Radeon R7 M265 with an average score of 4929, a delta of 0%. The Vega 3's nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 460M at 4282, a delta of -0.3%. Interesting company either way, but the R7 M360's neighborhood includes the FirePro W5130M at 4904 (0.6% delta) and even the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901 (0.6% delta), which is a strange statistical neighbor but shows how tightly clustered scores are at this level.

The Vega 3's neighborhood is similarly tight. The Quadro K3000M sits at 4241 (0.6% delta), the FirePro W2100 at 4295 (-0.6% delta), and the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335 (-1.5% delta). These deltas are all within a couple of percentage points, meaning the Vega 3 is statistically indistinguishable from a handful of other products in the database. The R7 M360 is likewise close to its rivals, but it lands on the favorable side of its comparisons more often.

Looking at the raw specifications that drive these scores, the R7 M360 brings 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Vega 3 halves that: 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Pixel rate is 9.000 GPixel/s for the R7 M360 versus 4.400 GPixel/s for the Vega 3. Texture rate is 27.00 GTexel/s versus 13.20 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 864.0 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS. Across every throughput metric, the R7 M360 delivers exactly double or close to double the Vega 3's output. The clock speeds tell the rest of the story: the R7 M360 runs at 1100 MHz base and 1125 MHz boost, while the Vega 3 runs at 300 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost. That base clock difference is enormous. The Vega 3 relies on its boost state to reach usable performance, while the R7 M360 runs near its peak at all times.

Memory is another dividing line. The R7 M360 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 3 shares system memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. That means the Vega 3's memory performance varies with the host system's RAM configuration, while the R7 M360 has a fixed, predictable memory pipeline. In benchmark terms, this likely explains some of the Vulkan gap. Dedicated memory avoids the contention and latency of shared system memory, especially in API workloads that stress bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the faster GPU in this pairing. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a 15% average score advantage, and delivers roughly double the throughput in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute. Any workload that leans on those resources will favor the R7 M360. The Vega 3's only structural advantages are its integration into the CPU package, its lower power draw at 15 W, and its newer architecture generation. For pure graphics performance, the R7 M360 is the pick.

That said, the Vega 3 is not without reasons to exist. It is an integrated processor solution, which means no separate purchase and no discrete card footprint. It is also a newer design, built on the GCN 5.0 architecture versus the R7 M360's GCN 3.0. It supports DirectX 12_1, while the R7 M360 only reaches DirectX 12_0. It also exposes Vulkan 1.3, a newer API version than the R7 M360's 1.2.170. For a system builder prioritizing low power consumption and a compact platform, the Vega 3 has genuine appeal despite the performance deficit.

The percentile rankings settle the argument. The R7 M360 sits at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, the Vega 3 at the 25th. Neither is a strong performer by modern standards, but the R7 M360 is measurably less weak. The database's nearest rival data confirms both parts are clustered with other low-to-midrange products from their respective eras. The R7 M360's rivals include the R7 M265, FirePro W5130M, and GeForce GTS 450, all within 0.8% of its average score. The Vega 3's rivals include the GTX 460M, FirePro W2100, and Quadro K3000M, all within 0.6%. Neither part escapes its weight class.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M360 wins in any scenario that demands raw graphics throughput. Its 27.00 GTexel/s texture rate and 9.000 GPixel/s pixel rate make it the better choice for fill-rate-bound workloads. Older games, light 3D rendering, and GPU-accelerated compute tasks will all favor the discrete card. The FP32 figure of 864.0 GFLOPS is double the Vega 3's 422.4 GFLOPS, which matters for OpenCL applications and any general-purpose GPU compute. The Vulkan score of 5223 against 3961 indicates the R7 M360 also handles modern API titles better, at least within the limits of this benchmark.

The Vega 3 wins in power efficiency and platform simplicity. Its 15 W TDP is a hard number and a strong one for an integrated part. The R7 M360 has no listed TDP, but as a discrete GPU it inherently requires more power and space. The Vega 3 is an IGP, meaning it shares the CPU die and uses system memory. That makes it the right choice for thin-and-light laptops, ultraportables, or any system where a discrete GPU is not feasible. Its 12 nm process node and GCN 5.0 architecture also suggest better architectural efficiency per clock, even if the R7 M360's higher clocks and wider configuration overcome that in practice.

For gaming, the R7 M360 is the stronger option across both tested APIs. For productivity tasks that use OpenCL, it wins again. The Vega 3 only becomes the sensible pick when the alternative is no GPU at all. If a system must run on integrated graphics, the Vega 3 is a functional baseline. But if a discrete card can be installed, the R7 M360 offers measurably more performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4638 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the AMD Radeon Vega 3's 3963 by 17%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The R7 M360 scores 5223 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Vega 3 scores 3961. The R7 M360 leads by 31.9%.

Q: Does the Vega 3 have better API support?

A: Yes. The Vega 3 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 M360 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R7 M360 has an average benchmark score of 4931, compared to the Vega 3's 4268. The R7 M360 also ranks at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 3 ranks at the 25th.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The R7 M360's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M265 with an average score of 4929, a delta of 0%. The Vega 3's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M with an average score of 4282, a delta of -0.3%.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R7 M360 has 384 shading units, exactly double the Vega 3's 192.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The R7 M360 uses GCN 3.0, built on the Meso chip, and belongs to the Gem System R7 M300 generation. The Vega 3 uses GCN 5.0, built on the Picasso chip, and belongs to the Vega IGP Picasso generation. That generational gap matters. GCN 5.0 introduced architectural improvements that the older GCN 3.0 lacks, including better geometry processing and updated API support. The Vega 3 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 M360 is limited to DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The process nodes differ as well. The R7 M360 is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Vega 3 is manufactured on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The newer node allows higher transistor density: 23.5M per mm² for the Vega 3 versus 12.4M per mm² for the R7 M360. The full die sizes reflect this. The Picasso chip contains 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, while the Meso chip contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The Vega 3's die is larger and denser because it includes the CPU cores and the integrated GPU together. The R7 M360 is a discrete-only design with no IGP, hence its smaller transistor count despite the smaller process advantage.

FP16 compute differs between the two as well. The R7 M360 handles FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both rated at 864.0 GFLOPS. The Vega 3 handles FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32: 844.8 GFLOPS FP16 versus 422.4 GFLOPS FP32. In effect, the Vega 3 can double its FP16 throughput relative to its FP32 throughput. The R7 M360 cannot. This matters for workloads that leverage FP16 arithmetic, where the Vega 3's architecture has a theoretical advantage even if its overall throughput is lower.

The production status and release dates place these parts in different eras. The R7 M360 was released in May 2015 and is now end-of-life. The Vega 3 was released in November 2019 and is also end-of-life. The R7 M360's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The Vega 3's predecessor is GCN 3.0 IGP and its successor is Vega II IGP. Both have no listed launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The R7 M360 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Vega 3 has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Every one of those core counts is exactly half on the Vega 3. The clock speeds tell a different story. The R7 M360 runs at 1100 MHz base and 1125 MHz boost. The Vega 3 runs at 300 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost. The R7 M360 holds a massive base clock advantage but the Vega 3's boost clock nearly matches it.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The R7 M360 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with 900 MHz memory clock and 1800 Mbps effective speed, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 3 uses system shared memory for size, type, bus width, and bandwidth, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The R7 M360 has a fixed memory pipeline; the Vega 3's performance scales with host memory.

Throughput rates follow the core counts. The R7 M360 achieves 9.000 GPixel/s pixel rate and 27.00 GTexel/s texture rate. The Vega 3 achieves 4.400 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 864.0 GFLOPS for the R7 M360 and 422.4 GFLOPS for the Vega 3. The R7 M360 doubles the Vega 3 in all three metrics.

Power and physical specifications differ sharply. The Vega 3 has a listed TDP of 15 W, is an IGP, has no power connectors, and uses a motherboard-dependent display output. The R7 M360 has no listed TDP, is not an IGP, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The Vega 3 uses an IGP bus interface. The R7 M360 is a discrete card that requires a slot. The Vega 3 is integrated into the CPU package. These are the defining practical differences: one is a dedicated GPU with fixed memory and higher throughput, the other is a low-power integrated solution with shared memory and newer architecture. The benchmarks show the discrete card wins on performance, while the IGP wins on integration and power draw.