AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M and AMD Radeon R7 M360 are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different eras, with the former launching in 2013 and the latter in 2015. The data shows a split decision: the GTX 760M takes a commanding lead in OpenCL compute workloads, while the R7 M360 counters with a win in Vulkan performance. Their average benchmark scores are close, but architectural and memory differences create distinct use-case scenarios that matter more than the aggregate numbers suggest.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M leads with an average benchmark score of 5236, placing it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 trails at 4931, which puts it in the 29th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 760M is decisively ahead in FP32 compute, delivering 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus the R7 M360's 864.0 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part achieves this with 768 shading units and a texture rate of 46.02 GTexel/s, while the AMD part uses 384 shading units and a texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon R7 M360 ever faster than the GTX 760M?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, the R7 M360 scores 5223 against the GTX 760M's 4868, giving AMD a 6.8% advantage. This is the sole benchmark win for the AMD part.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: The GTX 760M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M360 also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a narrower 64-bit bus, resulting in just 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and a slightly newer Vulkan 1.2.175, but its OpenGL support is identical at 4.6.

Q: How close are these GPUs to their nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 760M sits within 1.5% of its closest rivals, including the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (1.5% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (0.9% ahead). The R7 M360 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M265 at 0% delta, and is only 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760M is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks and memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Its OpenCL score of 5604 is 20.8% higher than the R7 M360's 4638, and the NVIDIA part's 64.13 GB/s of memory bandwidth is more than four times the AMD part's 14.40 GB/s. This makes the GTX 760M better suited for GPGPU applications, video encoding, and any task that relies on moving large amounts of data quickly. Its higher pixel rate (11.50 GPixel/s vs 9.000 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.02 GTexel/s vs 27.00 GTexel/s) further cement its advantage in traditional rasterization throughput.

The R7 M360 wins in Vulkan-based workloads. Its 5223 Vulkan score edges out the GTX 760M's 4868, a 6.8% margin. This suggests that the AMD part has better driver optimization or architectural efficiency for the Vulkan API, which could translate to smoother performance in Vulkan-native games or applications. The R7 M360 also has a higher base clock (1100 MHz vs 628 MHz) and boost clock (1125 MHz vs 719 MHz), which helps it close the gap in certain scenarios despite having fewer shading units and less memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 760M is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture using the GK106S chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This die contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² area, giving a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The Kepler design emphasizes high shading unit counts and efficient memory utilization, which is reflected in its 768 shading units and 64 TMUs.

The R7 M360 uses AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip, also on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 1,550 million transistors into a smaller 125 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher transistor density of 12.4M per mm². GCN 3.0 is designed for compute scalability, but the R7 M360 implements it with only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs—half the shading units of the NVIDIA part.

The FP16 capabilities differ notably. The R7 M360 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (both at 864.0 GFLOPS), while the GTX 760M lists no FP16 support. For DirectX, the AMD part supports the full DirectX 12 (12_0) feature set, whereas the NVIDIA part is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). In Vulkan, the GTX 760M has a slightly newer version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170), but this is unlikely to be a practical differentiator.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M | AMD Radeon R7 M360 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | GK106S | Meso |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Base Clock | 628 MHz | 1100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 719 MHz | 1125 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.13 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 768 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.50 GPixel/s | 9.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.02 GTexel/s | 27.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1,104.4 GFLOPS | 864.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | N/A | 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | N/A |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

The most consequential differences are memory bandwidth (64.13 vs 14.40 GB/s), shading units (768 vs 384), and the bus interface width (x16 vs x8). The GTX 760M's GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides a massive 4.5x bandwidth advantage, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution rendering. The R7 M360's higher clocks (1100 MHz base vs 628 MHz) partially compensate for its lower core count, but cannot overcome the memory deficit.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers a decisive win for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M. It scores 5604 against the R7 M360's 4638, a 20.8% margin. This result aligns with the hardware specifications: the GTX 760M has double the shading units, 2.7x the texture rate, and 4.5x the memory bandwidth. OpenCL workloads that stress raw compute throughput and memory access will consistently favor the NVIDIA part.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script. Here, the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 5223 versus the GTX 760M's 4868, giving AMD a 6.8% win. This is a notable upset given the GTX 760M's hardware advantages. The R7 M360's full DirectX 12 (12_0) support and GCN 3.0 architecture likely contribute to its better Vulkan performance, as GCN was designed with modern API efficiency in mind. The higher boost clock of 1125 MHz also helps the AMD part in latency-sensitive workloads.

Across both benchmarks, the scores are close in aggregate (5236 vs 4931, a 6.2% difference), but the distribution of wins is lopsided. The GTX 760M's OpenCL victory is three times larger than the R7 M360's Vulkan margin, suggesting the NVIDIA part is the stronger overall performer despite losing one benchmark.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M as the more capable GPU for most scenarios. Its 20.8% OpenCL lead, combined with 45% higher FP32 compute (1,104.4 vs 864.0 GFLOPS) and a 4.5x memory bandwidth advantage, makes it the better choice for compute, productivity, and traditional game rendering. The 31st percentile ranking versus the R7 M360's 29th percentile further supports this conclusion. Buyers seeking a used or legacy mobile GPU for OpenCL-accelerated tasks or bandwidth-hungry applications should favor the GTX 760M.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the pick only if Vulkan performance is the primary concern. Its 6.8% Vulkan win over the GTX 760M, coupled with full DirectX 12 (12_0) support, makes it a reasonable choice for Vulkan-native gaming or applications that leverage newer graphics APIs. It is also a smaller die (125 mm² vs 221 mm²) with fewer transistors (1,550 million vs 2,540 million), which might translate to lower power draw in practice—though no TDP is listed for the AMD part. For users who prioritize modern API compatibility over raw throughput, the R7 M360 holds a narrow niche. Everyone else should pick the GTX 760M, as its benchmark wins are larger, its memory subsystem is vastly superior, and its compute output is unmatched in this pairing.