AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Comparison

AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows two benchmark comparisons between these cards, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti wins both outright. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129 against the R7 M360’s 4,638, a delta of -74.4% from the perspective of the AMD part. That is not a close race; it is a generational gap expressed as raw compute throughput. The AMD card delivers 864.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA part delivers 2.138 TFLOPS, so the OpenCL result aligns with the theoretical peak.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a narrower but still decisive margin. The GTX 1050 Ti scores 10,001, while the R7 M360 scores 5,223, a delta of -47.8%. Vulkan tends to favor architectures with lower driver overhead and better async compute handling, and Pascal’s implementation here pulls ahead by roughly 91.5%. The R7 M360’s Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, which suggests the GCN 3.0 architecture scales reasonably well with the API, but it cannot overcome the fundamental resource deficit.

The R7 M360 has zero benchmark wins in this comparison. The GTX 1050 Ti has two. When you look at the average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the R7 M360 averages 4,931 while the GTX 1050 Ti averages 4,193. That is a counterintuitive result: the GTX 1050 Ti wins every head-to-head test yet has a lower average across its full benchmark suite. The reason is that the GTX 1050 Ti has been tested in more diverse workloads, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute, and some of those legacy API tests score low. The R7 M360 only has OpenCL and Vulkan scores, which skew high. In the common ground of OpenCL and Vulkan, the GTX 1050 Ti is clearly faster.

Architecture Differences

The R7 M360 is built on AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Meso chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 1050 Ti uses NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, with the GP107 chip, on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 14 nm means the NVIDIA part packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, while AMD fits only 1,550 million into a 125 mm² die. That translates to a transistor density of 25.0M per mm² for the GTX 1050 Ti versus 12.4M per mm² for the R7 M360. The newer node allows NVIDIA to double the transistor count on a similarly sized die, which directly enables the performance gap.

Memory configuration is another major divide. The R7 M360 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1050 Ti uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. That is roughly 7.8 times more bandwidth, which matters greatly for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolution rendering. The R7 M360’s memory clocks at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the GTX 1050 Ti runs at 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective. The bus width difference alone, 64-bit versus 128-bit, doubles the potential throughput, and the faster memory type multiplies it further.

Compute resources differ sharply. The R7 M360 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Every count is doubled or quadrupled. Pixel rate on the R7 M360 is 9.000 GPixel/s, while the GTX 1050 Ti achieves 44.54 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 27.00 GTexel/s versus 66.82 GTexel/s. FP16 performance shows an interesting inversion: the R7 M360 does 864.0 GFLOPS at FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the GTX 1050 Ti does only 33.41 GFLOPS at FP16 with a 1:64 ratio. That means the AMD card is actually better at half-precision compute, but it is a niche advantage given the overall performance deficit.

API support also differs. Both support DirectX 12, but the R7 M360 is at feature level 12_0 while the GTX 1050 Ti is at 12_1. Vulkan support on the GTX 1050 Ti is version 1.4, while the R7 M360 supports 1.2.170. OpenGL is identical at 4.6. The GTX 1050 Ti also supports Metal, with a recorded Geekbench Metal score of 7,834, which the R7 M360 does not have.

FAQ

Q: Why does the GTX 1050 Ti have a lower average benchmark score than the R7 M360 despite winning every head-to-head test?

A: The average score includes all recorded benchmarks for each card. The R7 M360 only has OpenCL and Vulkan results, which are both above 4,600. The GTX 1050 Ti has 11 recorded tests, including legacy DirectX 9, 10, and 11 scores that are low (104, 31, and 45 respectively), pulling its average down to 4,193.

Q: Is the R7 M360 better at any compute task?

A: The R7 M360 has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, delivering 864.0 GFLOPS at half precision. The GTX 1050 Ti has a 1:64 ratio, delivering only 33.41 GFLOPS at FP16. In workloads that use FP16 heavily, the AMD card has a theoretical advantage, but no head-to-head benchmark confirms this in practice.

Q: What does the -74.4% delta in OpenCL mean?

A: The delta is calculated from the AMD card’s perspective. A negative value means the GTX 1050 Ti is faster. In this case, the GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129 versus 4,638, so it is roughly 3.9 times faster in OpenCL.

Q: Does the GTX 1050 Ti support more display outputs?

A: Yes. The recorded data lists the GTX 1050 Ti with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The R7 M360 has no display output information in the database.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti achieves 44.54 GPixel/s, while the R7 M360 achieves 9.000 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card is nearly five times faster in this metric, which directly impacts rasterization throughput.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has 25.0M transistors per mm², while the R7 M360 has 12.4M per mm². This is a direct result of the 14 nm versus 28 nm process node.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. Process node: 28 nm (AMD) versus 14 nm (NVIDIA). Foundry: TSMC versus Samsung. Transistors: 1,550 million versus 3,300 million. Die size: 125 mm² versus 132 mm². Transistor density: 12.4M / mm² versus 25.0M / mm². Base clock: 1100 MHz versus 1291 MHz. Boost clock: 1125 MHz versus 1392 MHz. Memory clock: 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective versus 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective. Memory size: 2 GB versus 4 GB. Memory type: DDR3 versus GDDR5. Bus width: 64 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s versus 112.1 GB/s. Shading units: 384 versus 768. TMUs: 24 versus 48. ROPs: 8 versus 32. Pixel rate: 9.000 GPixel/s versus 44.54 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 27.00 GTexel/s versus 66.82 GTexel/s. FP32: 864.0 GFLOPS versus 2.138 TFLOPS. FP16: 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64). TDP: no recorded value versus 75 W. Slot width: no recorded value versus dual-slot. Power connectors: no recorded value versus none. Suggested PSU: no recorded value versus 250 W. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: no recorded value versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX: 12 (12_0) versus 12 (12_1). Vulkan: 1.2.170 versus 1.4. Release date: May 2015 versus October 2016. The GTX 1050 Ti also has a 145 mm length and 111 mm height, while the R7 M360 has no recorded dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M360 wins in FP16 compute efficiency. Its 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio means it can process half-precision data at the same rate as full precision, which is useful for certain machine learning and image processing workloads that tolerate reduced precision. It also has a lower transistor count and smaller die, which may imply lower manufacturing complexity, but no TDP is recorded for direct comparison. Its only benchmark scores are competitive with its nearest rivals: it sits 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5130M and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, but those are all low-end parts. In every head-to-head test, it loses.

The GTX 1050 Ti wins in rasterization, memory bandwidth, and API compatibility. Its 112.1 GB/s bandwidth is essential for modern game textures, and its 32 ROPs allow it to push pixels at 44.54 GPixel/s. Its DirectX 12_1 feature level supports more advanced rendering techniques than the 12_0 level on the R7 M360. It also has a higher Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170) and supports Metal, which the AMD card does not. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (0.6% slower) and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (1.8% slower), but it also slightly trails the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M by 1.1%. In the recorded head-to-head tests, it dominates by 74.4% in OpenCL and 47.8% in Vulkan.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the superior card for almost any purpose. It wins both recorded benchmarks by wide margins, offers four times the memory capacity, eight times the memory bandwidth, twice the shading units, four times the ROPs, and a significantly more modern process node. The GTX 1050 Ti is the pick for anyone running games, video encoding, or general GPU compute that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan. Its 4 GB GDDR5 buffer is also a practical minimum for modern game installs, while the R7 M360’s 2 GB DDR3 configuration will bottleneck even light texture loads.

The R7 M360 is only relevant in a narrow niche: workloads that require FP16 throughput at a 1:1 ratio. That is a rare requirement in consumer software, and even then, the GTX 1050 Ti’s overall compute power may outweigh the FP16 advantage. If you are choosing between these two based on recorded data, the GTX 1050 Ti is the answer for gaming and general compute. The R7 M360 should be considered only if you have a specific half-precision workload and do not need rasterization performance. The GTX 1050 Ti’s launch MSRP was 139 USD, and its end-of-life status means it is an older part, but the benchmark results show it still outclasses the R7 M360 by a factor of nearly four in OpenCL. Choose the GTX 1050 Ti unless your application explicitly demands FP16 compute with 1:1 ratio, and even then, verify that the workload is not bottlenecked by memory bandwidth or pixel throughput.