AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M and AMD Radeon R7 M360 are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from different architectural generations, yet their benchmark averages are closer than their lineage suggests. The 840M holds a slim lead in average benchmark score at 5,322 versus 4,931 for the R7 M360, a difference of roughly 7.9%. However, the data reveals a split personality: NVIDIA dominates in OpenCL compute, while AMD counters in Vulkan graphics workloads. This head-to-head analysis examines where each chip wins, what the architectural differences mean, and which GPU the numbers favor for specific tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results split cleanly along API lines. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively, scoring 5,764 against the AMD’s 4,638, a 24.3% advantage. OpenCL performance is often associated with general-purpose compute tasks, so this suggests the 840M is the stronger choice for applications that leverage GPU compute acceleration. The 840M’s average benchmark score of 5,322 also places it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of the R7 M360’s 29th percentile.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 5,223 versus the 840M’s 4,880, a 6.6% margin. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics and compute API, and this win indicates the R7 M360 handles modern graphics workloads more efficiently. Interestingly, the R7 M360’s average benchmark score of 4,931 is dragged down by its weak OpenCL result, but its Vulkan performance proves it is not a slouch in gaming-oriented scenarios. For users prioritizing compute-heavy applications, the 840M wins; for those leaning on Vulkan-based games or renderers, the R7 M360 holds the edge.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. NVIDIA’s GeForce 840M is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. In contrast, AMD’s Radeon R7 M360 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with 1,550 million transistors on a larger 125 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.4 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ in texture handling. Both GPUs feature 384 shading units and 8 ROPs, but the R7 M360 has 24 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus the 840M’s 16. This translates to a texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s for AMD, compared to 17.98 GTexel/s for NVIDIA, a 50% advantage. Pixel rates are nearly identical at 9.000 GPixel/s for AMD and 8.992 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Clock speeds are similar, with the R7 M360 boosting to 1,125 MHz and the 840M to 1,124 MHz, but the base clocks differ at 1,100 MHz versus 1,029 MHz.

Memory configurations are nearly identical: both use 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. However, NVIDIA runs its memory at 1,001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for a bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s, while AMD’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) for 14.40 GB/s. API support also diverges: the 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M360’s higher DirectX 12 feature level could matter for newer titles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the 840M’s standout victory. It scores 5,764, which is 24.3% higher than the R7 M360’s 4,638. This is a significant margin, indicating that NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture handles OpenCL compute with far greater efficiency than AMD’s GCN 3.0 in this specific workload. The 840M’s average benchmark score of 5,322 is also buoyed by this result, placing it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5,317) and 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5,308) among its nearest rivals. Meanwhile, it sits 0.7% below the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5,358).

The Vulkan test flips the script. The R7 M360 scores 5,223, beating the 840M’s 4,880 by 6.6%. This win is notable because Vulkan is a modern API, and AMD’s GCN architecture appears better optimized for it. The R7 M360’s average benchmark score of 4,931 places it within 0% of the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4,929) and 0.6% of the AMD FirePro W5130M (4,904) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901). It also leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4,893) by 0.8%. The data shows a clear trade-off: NVIDIA wins compute, AMD wins graphics API performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has an average benchmark score of 5,322, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M360’s 4,931. The 840M also occupies a higher percentile rank at 31 versus 29 for the R7 M360.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce 840M in OpenCL?

A: The 840M scores 5,764 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 24.3% higher than the R7 M360’s 4,638. This is the largest performance gap between the two GPUs across the tested benchmarks.

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

A: Yes, the R7 M360 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 5,223, beating the 840M’s 4,880 by 6.6%. This indicates stronger performance in Vulkan-based workloads.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for these GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has a memory bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 has a lower bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. Both use 2 GB DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: How do their texture processing capabilities compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has 24 texture mapping units and a texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s, which is significantly higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 840M’s 16 TMUs and 17.98 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The R7 M360’s feature level 12_0 is more modern.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. For compute-centric tasks, the NVIDIA GeForce 840M is the clear winner, with a 24.3% lead in OpenCL and a higher average benchmark score. Its memory bandwidth is also superior at 16.02 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, which can benefit data-heavy workloads. The 840M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce 930A and GTX 980M, with which it trades blows within 0.3%, indicating it sits in a competitive performance band.

For graphics-focused applications, particularly those using Vulkan, the AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the better choice. Its 6.6% Vulkan win and higher texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s suggest it handles modern rendering pipelines more efficiently. The R7 M360’s DirectX 12 (12_0) support also gives it an edge in API compatibility over the 840M’s DirectX 12 (11_0). However, its lower average score and OpenCL deficit mean it is less versatile overall.

Users should pick the 840M if their primary workload is OpenCL compute or general-purpose GPU acceleration. The R7 M360 is preferable for Vulkan-based gaming or rendering, where its API performance and texture throughput shine. Neither GPU is a dominant all-rounder, but the 840M’s higher average score and percentile rank give it a slight edge in aggregate performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 840M | AMD Radeon R7 M360 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | GM108S | Meso |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1029 MHz | 1100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1125 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| TMUs | 16 | 24 |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 27.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 863.2 GFLOPS | 864.0 GFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 33 W | null |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2015-05-04 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 700M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 900M | Polaris Mobile |

The two GPUs share a 28 nm TSMC process, 2 GB DDR3 memory, 64-bit bus width, 384 shading units, 8 ROPs, and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The primary differences lie in architecture, transistor budget, texture units, memory clock, and API support. AMD’s larger die and higher TMU count give it a texture processing advantage, while NVIDIA’s higher memory clock and lower TDP (33 W) suggest better efficiency. The R7 M360’s FP16 support at 1:1 ratio is a feature the 840M lacks entirely, which could matter for specific compute workloads.