AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 and NVIDIA Quadro K2100M represent two very different design philosophies from the same era of mobile graphics. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The R7 M360 uses the Meso chip based on AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture, part of the Gem System generation within the R7 M300 family. It packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The chip is organized around 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. Clock speeds are notably high for its class: a base of 1100 MHz and a boost of 1125 MHz. The memory subsystem is more modest, with 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, producing 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective 1800 Mbps.

The Quadro K2100M takes the opposite approach. Its GK106S chip is based on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler-M generation. It is a substantially larger piece of silicon at 221 mm², containing 2,540 million transistors with a density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The compute configuration is richer: 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, clocks are much lower, with a fixed 667 MHz for both base and boost. The memory side is where the Quadro pulls ahead: 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus delivers 48.13 GB/s, more than three times the bandwidth of the AMD part, at an effective 3 Gbps.

The raw throughput figures reflect these trade-offs. The R7 M360 reaches 864.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and matches that with 864.0 GFLOPS of FP16 (at a 1:1 ratio). The Quadro K2100M delivers 768.4 GFLOPS of FP32 but has no listed FP16 capability. Pixel fill rates are close: 9.000 GPixel/s for the AMD chip versus 8.004 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA. Texture rate goes the other way, with the Quadro at 32.02 GTexel/s compared to the R7 M360's 27.00 GTexel/s.

There are also platform-level differences. The AMD part uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the NVIDIA part is an MXM-A (3.0) module with a 55 W TDP and no power connectors. The NVIDIA chip also reports a larger API feature set for Vulkan (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170) but a lower DirectX tier: 12 (11_0) rather than 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R7 M360 lists no TDP, no slot width, and no display outputs in the database, while the Quadro K2100M is documented as a portable-device-dependent MXM module.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 4638 against 4587 for the Quadro K2100M, a 1.1% margin. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically: 5223 versus 4343, a 20.3% advantage for the AMD part. The R7 M360 also holds the higher average benchmark score at 4931 versus 4151.

That said, the context matters. The R7 M360 sits at the 29th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K2100M sits at the 25th. Both are firmly entry-level mobile parts, and the AMD card's nearest rivals include the Radeon R7 M265 (average score 4929, 0% delta), the FirePro W5130M (4904, 0.6% slower), and even the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, 0.6% slower). The Quadro's nearest rivals are similarly close: the Radeon R5 M330 (4170, 0.4% faster), the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, 1% faster), and the RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, 1.4% slower). The R7 M360 is essentially at parity with a desktop GeForce GTS 450 (4893, 0.8% slower).

Who should pick which? From the data alone, the R7 M360 is the stronger performer in both recorded workloads. Its Vulkan advantage is particularly pronounced, which matters for any application using that API. The Quadro K2100M, despite its NVIDIA branding and larger memory bandwidth, does not convert those specifications into a win in either recorded test. However, the Quadro's lower average score and smaller percentile ranking suggest it is the weaker part overall in this database. The only reasons to favor the Quadro would be platform-specific requirements: it is an MXM module with a defined 55 W TDP, whereas the R7 M360 lacks documented power and form-factor details. If a system requires MXM-A form factor or a vendor-specific Quadro driver stack, the K2100M is the only option of the two.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M360 wins in both recorded benchmark categories: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Its margin in Vulkan is substantial, and even in OpenCL it edges out the Quadro by a narrow but consistent margin. The AMD part also leads in overall average benchmark score by a meaningful 780 points.

The Quadro K2100M does not win any recorded benchmark. It does, however, lead in several theoretical specifications that could matter in workloads not captured by these two tests. Its memory bandwidth advantage (48.13 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) is the largest single architectural gap between the two chips. Texture rate is also higher (32.02 GTexel/s versus 27.00 GTexel/s). These figures suggest the Quadro could be more competitive in texture-bound or bandwidth-bound tasks, but no such test appears in the head-to-head data to confirm that hypothesis.

For pure compute-bound or Vulkan-based workloads, the R7 M360 is the clear choice based on recorded results. For users locked into an MXM-based system, the Quadro K2100M is the only compatible part, and its higher bandwidth could be a tiebreaker in unrecorded memory-heavy scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Vulkan result is the headline number. The R7 M360 scores 5223, the Quadro K2100M scores 4343. That is a 20.3% delta, a decisive victory in a modern API that matters for current software compatibility. The AMD part's Vulkan 1.2.170 support pairs with this result, while the Quadro's slightly newer Vulkan 1.2.175 does not help it close the gap.

The OpenCL test is much closer. The R7 M360 records 4638 against 4587 for the Quadro, a 1.1% margin. This is within the noise of the nearest-rival comparisons: the R7 M360's closest rival (the R7 M265) is 0% away, and the Quadro's closest rival (the R5 M330) is 0.4% away. The OpenCL result effectively places these two cards at the same performance tier, with the AMD part holding a slight edge.

The average benchmark score reinforces the Vulkan result. The R7 M360 averages 4931 across its recorded tests, while the Quadro averages 4151. The delta is 780 points, or roughly 18.8% relative to the Quadro's average. This aligns with the 20.3% Vulkan gap and softens the narrow OpenCL result. In the database's percentile ranking, the R7 M360's 29th percentile versus the Quadro's 25th percentile places them both in the bottom quarter of all GPUs, but with a clear hierarchical order.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins with a score of 5223 against 4343 for the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, a 20.3% advantage.

Q: How close is the OpenCL performance between the two?

A: The R7 M360 scores 4638 and the Quadro K2100M scores 4587, a 1.1% margin in favor of AMD.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has 48.13 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the R7 M360 has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each?

A: The R7 M360 averages 4931 across its recorded tests, while the Quadro K2100M averages 4151.

Q: Which GPU sits higher in the database percentile ranking?

A: The R7 M360 is at the 29th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K2100M is at the 25th percentile.

Q: Does the Quadro K2100M win any recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins both.