AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M and the AMD Radeon R7 M365X is Geekbench OpenCL, and the data shows a clear winner. The GTX 580M scored 6389 points, while the R7 M365X scored 5939 points, giving the NVIDIA part a 7.6% advantage. This is a meaningful gap in raw compute performance, placing the GTX 580M ahead of the AMD part by a margin that is visible in real-world OpenCL workloads.

To put that score in context, the GTX 580M’s 6389 result places it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs in the database, and it is exactly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE at 6389 points, a 0% delta. It also sits within 0.3% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell at 6407 points, which indicates that despite its age, the Fermi-based part is still competitive with far newer hardware in this specific compute test. The R7 M365X, by contrast, scores 5939 on OpenCL, which is its stronger result, and its average benchmark score across all tests is 5416 points. This average is dragged down by its Vulkan score of 4893, a test the GTX 580M does not have a recorded result for.

The head-to-head comparison only has one entry, so the win count is 1 for the GTX 580M and 0 for the R7 M365X. That single data point is the OpenCL test, and the 7.6% delta is the definitive gap between these two mobile graphics solutions. It is worth remembering the R7 M365X’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 610M, scores 5444 points, which is 0.5% below the R7 M365X’s average, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5370 points is 0.9% behind. The GTX 580M’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100, scores 6330 points, which is 0.9% below the GTX 580M, and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 at 6327 points is 1% behind. These figures illustrate that both parts are clustered with similar low-end and legacy hardware, but the GTX 580M sits at the top of that cluster.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M scores 6389 points, which is 7.6% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M365X’s 5939 points.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M365X have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. The only shared benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 580M wins. The R7 M365X does have a separate Geekbench Vulkan score of 4893, but the GTX 580M has no recorded Vulkan result, so no direct comparison is possible.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 580M is exactly tied with the GeForce GTX 460 SE at 6389 points and is 0.3% below the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell at 6407 points. The R7 M365X is 0.5% below the Radeon 610M at 5444 points and 0.9% above the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5370 points.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The GTX 580M has an average benchmark score of 6389 points (from its single OpenCL result). The R7 M365X has an average of 5416 points, which combines its OpenCL score of 5939 and its Vulkan score of 4893.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 580M is in the 37th percentile, while the R7 M365X is in the 32nd percentile. The GTX 580M ranks higher overall.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 580M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R7 M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The R7 M365X also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the GTX 580M has no recorded Vulkan support.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, using the GF114 chip, and it is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 1,950 million transistors on a die size of 332 mm², yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a large, power-hungry design from 2011, and its production status is end-of-life.

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X, on the other hand, uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Litho chip, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 950 million transistors into a much smaller die of 77 mm², giving it a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. That is more than double the density of the GTX 580M, reflecting the newer process node and more compact design. The R7 M365X was released in 2015, several years after the GTX 580M, and it is also end-of-life.

In terms of compute resources, both GPUs have 384 shading units, which is a point of parity. However, the GTX 580M has 64 texture mapping units and 32 raster operation units, while the R7 M365X has only 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This disparity in texture and pixel processing hardware is a major reason for the GTX 580M’s higher fill rates: it achieves a pixel rate of 9.920 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s, versus 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s for the R7 M365X. The FP32 compute throughput also favors the GTX 580M at 952.3 GFLOPS, compared to 633.6 GFLOPS for the R7 M365X.

The memory subsystems differ as well. The GTX 580M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M365X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, resulting in 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 580M’s memory clock is 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the R7 M365X runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), but the wider bus of the NVIDIA part gives it the bandwidth advantage. The R7 M365X also lacks a recorded TDP, while the GTX 580M has a 100 W TDP, and the NVIDIA part is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface, whereas the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs show several clear divergences. The process node differs: 40 nm for the GTX 580M versus 28 nm for the R7 M365X. Transistor count is 1,950 million versus 950 million, and die size is 332 mm² versus 77 mm². The GTX 580M has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs, while the R7 M365X has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs, even though both have 384 shading units. Pixel rate is 9.920 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 39.68 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 952.3 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS.

Memory configuration differs in capacity, bus width, and bandwidth. The GTX 580M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M365X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s. Memory clocks are 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA part and 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the AMD part. The TDP is 100 W for the GTX 580M, with no recorded TDP for the R7 M365X. Bus interfaces differ: MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 580M versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M365X.

API support also differs. The GTX 580M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded. The R7 M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates are far apart: the GTX 580M launched on 2011-06-27, and the R7 M365X launched on 2015-05-04. The GTX 580M’s predecessor is the GeForce 400M and its successor is the GeForce 600M, while the R7 M365X’s predecessor is the Solar System series and its successor is the Polaris Mobile series.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M wins in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 7.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. It also holds decisive advantages in pixel rate (9.920 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s), texture rate (39.68 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (952.3 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS). These numbers indicate that the GTX 580M is better suited for workloads that are heavy on shading, texturing, and general-purpose compute, such as OpenCL-based rendering tasks or older game titles that leverage its 256-bit memory bus for higher bandwidth. Its 2 GB VRAM capacity and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth also give it more headroom for high-resolution textures and larger datasets than the R7 M365X’s 1024 MB and 64.00 GB/s.

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X wins in areas that are not directly benchmarked in the shared test. It has Vulkan 1.2.170 support, which the GTX 580M lacks, and it has a newer DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level compared to the GTX 580M’s 11_0. This makes the R7 M365X more compatible with modern graphics APIs and potentially better suited for newer software that relies on Vulkan. Its 28 nm process and smaller die (77 mm² versus 332 mm²) suggest a more power-efficient design, though no TDP is recorded for the AMD part to confirm this. The R7 M365X’s PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is also more modern than the MXM-B (3.0) interface of the GTX 580M, which may be relevant for system integration in newer laptops.

In terms of benchmark percentile, the GTX 580M is in the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M365X is in the 32nd percentile. The GTX 580M’s nearest rivals include the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell and the GeForce GTX 460 SE, which shows it is competitive with both legacy and modern parts in OpenCL. The R7 M365X’s nearest rivals are the Radeon 610M and Intel UHD Graphics P630, which are integrated or low-end discrete parts, placing it in a more modest performance tier.

For users who prioritize compute performance, memory bandwidth, and fill rates, the GTX 580M is the clear choice. For users who need modern API support, particularly Vulkan, or who value a newer, more efficient manufacturing process, the R7 M365X offers advantages. The single shared benchmark result, however, leaves no doubt that the GTX 580M is the faster GPU in head-to-head OpenCL testing.