AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, but not uniform, advantage for the AMD Radeon R7 M360 in the two shared benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD part delivers a score of 4638 against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M's 2680, a commanding 73.1% lead. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial performance gap that places the R7 M360 in a different competitive tier for compute-heavy workloads.

The Vulkan test tells a closer story. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 5223, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M posts 4875. The 7.1% delta still favors the AMD solution, but the margin is far narrower than in OpenCL. This suggests that while the AMD architecture has a decisive edge in general compute, the NVIDIA part is more competitive in a modern graphics API context, likely due to driver maturity or architectural efficiencies in that specific workload.

Across the two head-to-head tests, the AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins both, giving it a 2-0 record. The average benchmark score for the AMD part is 4931, compared to 4411 for the NVIDIA. That 11.8% average difference (calculated from the two averages) aligns with the overall impression: the R7 M360 is the faster card, but the gap is not overwhelming in every scenario. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M does have one notable benchmark result not shared by the AMD part: a Geekbench Metal score of 5679, which is higher than either of the AMD card's scores in OpenCL or Vulkan. This indicates that in Apple's Metal API, the NVIDIA card is particularly strong, though this test cannot be directly compared to the AMD scores since the R7 M360 has no Metal result in the database.

Placing these scores in context, the AMD Radeon R7 M360 sits at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M sits at the 26th. The nearest rivals for the AMD card include the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (average score 4929, a 0% delta), the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, 0.6% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, 0.6% faster). This indicates the R7 M360 is essentially tied with a modern entry-level desktop card in average compute performance. For the NVIDIA card, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499, which is 1.9% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4388, 0.5% slower), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360, 1.2% slower). The GT 645M is therefore clustered with other low-end mobile and integrated solutions, reinforcing its position as a modest performer.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ: the AMD chip packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the NVIDIA chip has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. This gives the AMD chip a higher transistor density of 12.4 million per mm² versus 10.8 million per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds show a significant difference. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 runs at a base clock of 1100 MHz and boosts to 1125 MHz. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M operates at a much lower 709 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. Despite this large clock advantage for AMD, the memory configuration tells a different story. Both cards use 2 GB of DDR3 memory at an effective 1800 Mbps, but the NVIDIA card has a 128-bit memory bus versus AMD's 64-bit bus. This doubles the NVIDIA card's memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

The shading unit count is identical at 384 for both, but the other core resources differ. The AMD card has 24 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs, while the NVIDIA card has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This means NVIDIA has more texture and pixel processing capacity, but AMD compensates with higher clock speeds. The pixel rate for AMD is 9.000 GPixel/s, while NVIDIA manages 6.240 GPixel/s. Texture rates are closer: 27.00 GTexel/s for AMD versus 24.96 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

In terms of compute, the AMD card delivers 864.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while NVIDIA delivers 599.0 GFLOPS. The AMD card also lists FP16 performance at 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA card has no FP16 data recorded. The AMD card has a lower TDP not listed, while the NVIDIA card is rated at 32 W. The NVIDIA card is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, while the AMD card's power requirements are not specified in the database.

API support is another differentiator. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD card supports a higher DirectX feature level, which may matter for newer games, but the NVIDIA card has a slightly newer Vulkan version. The bus interface also differs: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16, giving the NVIDIA card more bandwidth to the host system.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its 73.1% lead in OpenCL and 7.1% lead in Vulkan, combined with higher clock speeds and more GFLOPS, make it the better choice for general-purpose compute tasks, OpenCL-accelerated applications, and workloads that benefit from higher shader throughput. The AMD card also has a higher DirectX 12 feature level (12_0 vs 11_0), which could provide better compatibility and performance in newer DirectX 12 titles. The data suggests this card is also better for users who prioritize compute over graphics-specific features.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has its own advantages. Its 128-bit memory bus and doubled memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s) could benefit memory-bound workloads, even if the compute cores are slower. The higher TMU and ROP counts (32 and 16 vs 24 and 8) mean the NVIDIA card has more capacity for texture-heavy and pixel-heavy rendering, which could partially offset its lower clock speeds in certain gaming scenarios. The Metal benchmark score of 5679 suggests this card performs well in Apple ecosystem applications, though this is not directly comparable to the AMD scores.

For gaming, the picture is nuanced. The AMD card has higher compute and pixel rates, but the NVIDIA card has more memory bandwidth and texture units. The Vulkan test, which is the closest to a modern gaming workload, shows only a 7.1% difference, indicating that in real-world gaming the gap may be smaller than the OpenCL numbers suggest. Users with memory-intensive applications might prefer the NVIDIA card despite its lower compute scores. The NVIDIA card also has a lower TDP at 32 W, which could make it more suitable for thin and light laptops where thermals are a concern.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, with all other recorded fields either being identical or not available:

• Shading Units: 384 (AMD) vs 384 (NVIDIA) - identical count, but different architectures
• TMUs: 24 (AMD) vs 32 (NVIDIA)
• ROPs: 8 (AMD) vs 16 (NVIDIA)
• Base Clock: 1100 MHz (AMD) vs 709 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Boost Clock: 1125 MHz (AMD) vs 780 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit (AMD) vs 128 bit (NVIDIA)
• Memory Bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s (AMD) vs 28.80 GB/s (NVIDIA)
• Pixel Rate: 9.000 GPixel/s (AMD) vs 6.240 GPixel/s (NVIDIA)
• Texture Rate: 27.00 GTexel/s (AMD) vs 24.96 GTexel/s (NVIDIA)
• FP32 Performance: 864.0 GFLOPS (AMD) vs 599.0 GFLOPS (NVIDIA)
• FP16 Performance: 864.0 GFLOPS (AMD) vs not listed (NVIDIA)
• TDP: not listed (AMD) vs 32 W (NVIDIA)
• Slot Width: not listed (AMD) vs IGP (NVIDIA)
• Power Connectors: not listed (AMD) vs None (NVIDIA)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 (AMD) vs PCIe 3.0 x16 (NVIDIA)
• Display Outputs: not listed (AMD) vs Portable Device Dependent (NVIDIA)
• DirectX: 12 (12_0) (AMD) vs 12 (11_0) (NVIDIA)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 (AMD) vs 1.2.175 (NVIDIA)
• Transistors: 1,550 million (AMD) vs 1,270 million (NVIDIA)
• Die Size: 125 mm² (AMD) vs 118 mm² (NVIDIA)
• Transistor Density: 12.4M / mm² (AMD) vs 10.8M / mm² (NVIDIA)
• Chip: Meso (AMD) vs GK107 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: GCN 3.0 (AMD) vs Kepler (NVIDIA)
• Generation: Gem System (R7 M300) (AMD) vs GeForce 600M (NVIDIA)
• Release Date: 2015-05-04 (AMD) vs 2012-09-30 (NVIDIA)

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4638 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 73.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M's score of 2680.

Q: Is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M ever faster than the AMD Radeon R7 M360?

A: In the two shared benchmark tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), the AMD card wins both. However, the NVIDIA card has a Geekbench Metal score of 5679, which is higher than either of the AMD card's recorded scores, though the AMD card has no Metal benchmark result for direct comparison.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M has 28.80 GB/s of memory bandwidth, exactly double the AMD Radeon R7 M360's 14.40 GB/s, due to its 128-bit memory bus versus AMD's 64-bit bus.

Q: Are the two cards on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, the AMD chip uses 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the NVIDIA chip uses 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die.

Q: Which card supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_0, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M supports DirectX 12 with feature level 11_0.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 (average score 4931) is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901). The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (average score 4411) is slightly behind the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499, 1.9% faster) and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4388, 0.5% slower).