AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs AMD Radeon R7 M440 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 has an average benchmark score of 5483, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5416. The difference is 67 points, placing the M440 slightly ahead in overall aggregate performance.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5939 versus the M440's 5214. This represents a 12.2% advantage for the M365X.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 5751 versus the M365X's 4893. This is a 17.5% advantage for the M440.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The R7 M440 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M365X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs share the same production status and release window?

A: Both are end-of-life products from AMD. The R7 M440 was released on 2016-05-14, while the R7 M365X was released on 2015-05-04, roughly one year earlier.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU according to aggregate scores?

A: The R7 M440's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (0.3% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (0.3% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (0.5% slower). The R7 M365X's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (0.9% faster), Intel UHD Graphics P630 (0.9% slower), and AMD Radeon R7 M445 (1.1% slower).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations within the same Gem System family. The R7 M440 uses the Meso chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, while the R7 M365X uses the Litho chip built on the older GCN 1.0 architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge significantly: the M440 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, whereas the M365X contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.4M / mm² for the M440 and 12.3M / mm² for the M365X.

The memory subsystems represent a major architectural split. The M440 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The M365X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s — more than four times the bandwidth despite having one-quarter the capacity.

Compute resources differ in count but not proportionally. The M365X has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The M440 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the M365X has 20% more shaders and 20% more TMUs, while both share the same ROP count. The M440 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (570.2 GFLOPS for both), while the M365X has no listed FP16 capability and delivers 633.6 GFLOPS FP32.

Feature support also differs in the DirectX realm. The M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M365X only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M440 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of "IGP" and portable-device-dependent display outputs, whereas the M365X has no slot width or display output information listed. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M365X takes the clear victory in raw compute throughput. Its 633.6 GFLOPS FP32 output is 11.1% higher than the M440's 570.2 GFLOPS. It also achieves a higher texture rate at 19.80 GTexel/s versus 17.82 GTexel/s, a 11.1% advantage. The memory bandwidth gap is even more pronounced: 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s means the M365X has 4.4 times the bandwidth, which benefits bandwidth-sensitive workloads like texture-heavy scenes or large buffer operations. The OpenCL benchmark confirms this, with the M365X scoring 12.2% higher.

The R7 M440 wins in pixel fill rate, delivering 7.128 GPixel/s versus the M365X's 6.600 GPixel/s — a 8.0% advantage. It also wins decisively in the Vulkan benchmark, scoring 17.5% higher. This suggests the newer GCN 3.0 architecture provides better low-level API efficiency, even with fewer shading units. The M440's larger 4 GB memory capacity also makes it more suitable for workloads requiring larger working sets, provided they fit within the narrower bus.

For modern API adoption, the M440's DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a meaningful advantage over the M365X's DirectX 12 (11_1), which may affect compatibility with newer titles or features. The M440 also has a higher aggregate benchmark score, albeit by a slim 1.2% margin.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ:

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M440 | AMD Radeon R7 M365X |

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

| Chip | Meso | Litho |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M400) | Gem System (R7 M300) |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.128 GPixel/s | 6.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.82 GTexel/s | 19.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 570.2 GFLOPS | 633.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| Slot Width | IGP | Not listed |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Not listed |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2015-05-04 |

Identical fields include manufacturer (AMD), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), ROP count (8), TDP (not listed), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), OpenGL (4.6), Vulkan (1.2.170), production status (end-of-life), predecessor (Solar System), successor (Polaris Mobile), and launch MSRP (not provided).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head benchmark results exactly one win each. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 M365X posts 5939 against the M440's 5214, a 12.2% margin. This aligns with its higher shader count, TMU count, and dramatically higher memory bandwidth. The OpenCL workload appears to reward the M365X's raw compute resources and memory throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the R7 M440 reverses the outcome with 5751 versus the M365X's 4893, a 17.5% margin. This is the larger single-test delta of the two. The Vulkan result suggests the M440's newer GCN 3.0 architecture handles low-level API overhead more efficiently, compensating for its 16.7% fewer shading units and 16.7% fewer TMUs.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The M440's average score of 5483 sits within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508) and within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501). The M365X's average of 5416 is 0.9% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358). Both GPUs land at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, meaning they occupy a similar performance tier despite their architectural differences.

The pixel rate comparison adds nuance. The M440 achieves 7.128 GPixel/s despite having the same 8 ROPs as the M365X, whose pixel rate is 6.600 GPixel/s. This 8.0% advantage in pixel throughput for the M440 likely stems from architectural improvements in GCN 3.0's ROP efficiency rather than raw hardware count.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the R7 M365X is the compute-oriented choice, while the R7 M440 is the modern-API choice. If the workload relies on OpenCL, memory bandwidth, or raw FP32 throughput, the M365X's 12.2% OpenCL lead, 4.4x bandwidth advantage, and 11.1% higher FP32 performance make it the stronger option. Its 384 shading units and 24 TMUs provide a tangible resource advantage for shader-heavy tasks.

If the workload uses Vulkan or requires DirectX 12 (12_0) feature support, the R7 M440 is the better pick. Its 17.5% Vulkan lead is the largest single benchmark delta between the two, and its newer GCN 3.0 architecture delivers higher pixel fill rate (7.128 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s) despite identical ROP counts. The 4 GB memory capacity also gives it more headroom for large datasets, though the narrow 64-bit bus limits sustained throughput.

For users prioritizing aggregate performance, the M440's 5483 average score edges out the M365X's 5416, but the 1.2% difference is within the noise of typical workload variation. Both GPUs sit at the 32nd percentile, and their nearest rivals overlap — the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 appears within 0.3% of the M440 and 0.9% of the M365X.

The practical verdict depends on the software environment. OpenCL-centric applications (compute, some productivity tools) favor the M365X. Vulkan-based games and applications favor the M440. DirectX 12 (12_0) compatibility is exclusive to the M440, which may be the deciding factor for newer titles. The M365X's older GCN 1.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (11_1) support make it the less future-proof option, despite its raw compute advantages. Neither GPU should be chosen for high-end gaming; their nearest rivals — the GTX 765M, MX130, and Quadro M4000 — all sit within 1% of their average scores, indicating a tightly clustered mid-low tier of performance.