AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics from the same era, and the benchmark data shows a decisive advantage for the NVIDIA part. The R7 M360, built on AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, is a low-power entry-level solution, while the GTX 970M, using NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 design, targets high-performance notebooks. The head-to-head results confirm this gap, with the GTX 970M winning both shared tests by massive margins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data available for direct comparison covers two compute-oriented tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M delivers a crushing victory over the AMD Radeon R7 M360.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M scores 18946 points, while the R7 M360 manages only 4638 points. This translates to a delta of -75.5% for the AMD part, meaning the GTX 970M is roughly four times faster in raw compute throughput. The gap is stark: the R7 M360’s score places it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 970M sits just below at the 27th percentile, yet the absolute performance difference is enormous. This suggests the R7 M360’s percentile is buoyed by a large number of even weaker integrated or legacy parts, not by competitive performance against dedicated mid-range hardware.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly smaller margin. The GTX 970M scores 18292, against 5223 for the R7 M360, a delta of -71.4%. Vulkan’s lower overhead does not close the gap; the NVIDIA part still leads by a factor of about 3.5. The R7 M360’s Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL result (5223 vs 4638), indicating some efficiency in the newer API, but this is far from enough to challenge the GTX 970M. Across both tests, the GTX 970M wins 2 out of 2, with the R7 M360 failing to secure a single victory.

These results align with the theoretical specifications. The GTX 970M’s FP32 throughput is listed at 2.657 TFLOPS, while the R7 M360 offers 864.0 GFLOPS — a 3.07x difference that roughly matches the observed benchmark deltas. The GTX 970M also has 1280 shading units versus 384, 80 TMUs versus 24, and 48 ROPs versus 8. In every measurable compute metric, the NVIDIA part is in a different class.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has a higher average benchmark score of 4931, compared to 4628 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M. However, this average is based on only two tests for the AMD part, while the NVIDIA part has ten benchmark entries, including multiple Passmark tests where it scores much lower than its Geekbench results.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 970M scores 18946, which is 14308 points higher than the R7 M360’s 4638. The delta is -75.5% for the AMD part, indicating the NVIDIA GPU is approximately four times faster in this workload.

Q: Does the R7 M360 win any benchmark against the GTX 970M?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests available (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the GTX 970M wins both. The R7 M360 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 970M is far ahead, scoring 18292 versus 5223 for the R7 M360. This is a delta of -71.4% for the AMD part, meaning the NVIDIA GPU is about 3.5 times faster.

Q: What is the percentile rank of each GPU?

A: The R7 M360 is in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 970M is in the 27th percentile. Despite the lower percentile, the GTX 970M has dramatically higher raw performance in the tested benchmarks.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The R7 M360 was released on May 4, 2015, while the GTX 970M was released earlier, on October 6, 2014.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 uses the Meso chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,550 million transistors on a die size of 125 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with 5,200 million transistors on a much larger 398 mm² die, achieving a density of 13.1 million per mm².

The core configurations diverge sharply. The R7 M360 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The GTX 970M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This 3.3x increase in shading units and 6x increase in ROPs explains why the NVIDIA part dominates pixel and texture throughput. The pixel rate is 9.000 GPixel/s for AMD versus 49.82 GPixel/s for NVIDIA; texture rate is 27.00 GTexel/s versus 83.04 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The R7 M360 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 970M uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 120.3 GB/s — an 8.35x advantage in memory bandwidth. This is critical for modern games and compute workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive. The GTX 970M’s memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the R7 M360 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Both support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels: the R7 M360 is at 12 (12_0), while the GTX 970M is at 12 (12_1). OpenGL support is the same at 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the R7 M360 supports 1.2.170, while the GTX 970M supports 1.4. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The GTX 970M has no listed FP16 capability, while the R7 M360 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the clear choice for any workload involving compute or graphics performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 71-75%, and its theoretical specs are overwhelmingly superior in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput. The R7 M360 offers no measurable advantage in any tested or specified metric.

The GTX 970M’s higher average benchmark score is misleading because it includes several low Passmark scores (e.g., 28 in DirectX 10, 24 in DirectX 12, 99 in DirectX 9), which drag down its average. Its Geekbench scores of 18946 and 18292 are its strongest results. The R7 M360’s average of 4931 is based on just two tests, both of which are far below the GTX 970M’s equivalent scores.

For users choosing between these two, the data is unambiguous: the GTX 970M is the superior product. The R7 M360’s only potential virtue is its smaller die size (125 mm² vs 398 mm²) and lower transistor count, which may imply lower power draw, but no TDP figures are provided in the data to confirm this. The GTX 970M also has a 6 GB memory allocation versus 2 GB, making it more suitable for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The verdict is straightforward: pick the GTX 970M unless constraints unrelated to performance (such as physical size or power limits) are a hard requirement.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: Meso (AMD) vs GM204 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: GCN 3.0 vs Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: Gem System (R7 M300) vs GeForce 900M
• Transistors: 1,550 million vs 5,200 million
• Die Size: 125 mm² vs 398 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.4M / mm² vs 13.1M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1100 MHz vs 924 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1125 MHz vs 1038 MHz
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) vs 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 6 GB
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs 192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s vs 120.3 GB/s
• Shading Units: 384 vs 1280
• TMUs: 24 vs 80
• ROPs: 8 vs 48
• Pixel Rate: 9.000 GPixel/s vs 49.82 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 27.00 GTexel/s vs 83.04 GTexel/s
• FP32: 864.0 GFLOPS vs 2.657 TFLOPS
• FP16: 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1) vs null
• Slot Width: null vs MXM Module
• Power Connectors: null vs None
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• Display Outputs: null vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: 12 (12_0) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2015-05-04 vs 2014-10-06
• Predecessor: Solar System vs GeForce 800M
• Successor: Polaris Mobile vs GeForce 10 Mobile

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark where the AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins. In the two head-to-head tests, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M wins both. The R7 M360’s higher average benchmark score (4931 vs 4628) is its only numerical advantage, but this is an artifact of test selection — the GTX 970M has more low-scoring Passmark entries (e.g., 24 in DirectX 12, 28 in DirectX 10) that reduce its average.

For compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL and Vulkan, the GTX 970M is the only viable option. Its 1280 shading units and 2.657 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarf the R7 M360’s 384 units and 864.0 GFLOPS. For memory-intensive tasks, the GTX 970M’s 120.3 GB/s bandwidth and 6 GB frame buffer are overwhelming advantages over the R7 M360’s 14.40 GB/s and 2 GB.

The R7 M360 could theoretically be preferred in scenarios where its smaller die size (125 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,550 million) translate into lower power consumption, but no TDP data is provided to confirm this. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is narrower than the GTX 970M’s MXM-B (3.0) connection, but that is a form factor difference rather than a performance metric. In every measurable performance category, the GTX 970M wins. The only scenario where the R7 M360 might be chosen is if system integration constraints (such as needing a PCIe card rather than an MXM module) force the decision.