AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a narrow but consistent picture: the AMD Radeon R7 M365X edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M in both recorded tests, winning the Geekbench OpenCL comparison by 6% and the Vulkan test by a slim 0.5%. However, the absolute scores tell a more nuanced story. The AMD part averages 5416 across its benchmarks, placing it at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part averages 5236, sitting at the 31st percentile. These are effectively peer-class mobile parts, separated by less than 4% in average score. The data suggests that neither card offers a decisive performance advantage for general workloads; the AMD card is the pick for users prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL, while the NVIDIA card's larger memory allocation (2 GB versus 1 GB) makes it the more sensible choice for workloads that exceed a single gigabyte of frame buffer. For esports and light 3D applications, either card suffices, but the M365X's small but real lead in both synthetic tests makes it the default recommendation when memory capacity is not a limiting factor.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages, which explains their divergent feature sets despite similar performance. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 77 mm² and 950 million transistors. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M uses the Kepler architecture, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with a substantially larger die at 221 mm² and 2,540 million transistors. This means the NVIDIA chip packs nearly 2.7 times more transistors into nearly three times the die area, yet it delivers lower benchmark scores. Transistor density favors AMD slightly, at 12.3 million transistors per mm² versus NVIDIA's 11.5 million per mm².

The compute configuration differs sharply. AMD fields 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, while NVIDIA counters with 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having double the shading units and more than double the TMUs and ROPs, the NVIDIA part still loses in OpenCL. This suggests that AMD's GCN architecture extracts more efficiency per shader in this particular workload, or that the NVIDIA's lower clock speeds (628 MHz base, 719 MHz boost) hamper its raw throughput. The AMD card has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA memory runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) — nearly identical.

API support also differs. AMD lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. NVIDIA lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0), while NVIDIA has a marginally newer Vulkan version. Both are end-of-life products, with AMD released in May 2015 and NVIDIA in May 2013. The AMD chip is codenamed "Litho" and belongs to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, while NVIDIA's chip is the GK106S from the GeForce 700M generation.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the data, the AMD Radeon R7 M365X wins both head-to-head benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 5939 versus the GTX 760M's 5604, a 6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 4893 versus 4868, a 0.5% edge that is within noise but still a win. The AMD part also has a higher average benchmark score (5416 versus 5236) and a slightly higher percentile ranking (32nd versus 31st).

Where the NVIDIA part wins is in memory capacity and bandwidth. The GTX 760M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the M365X's 1 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus, and the bandwidth figures are essentially tied (64.13 GB/s for NVIDIA versus 64.00 GB/s for AMD). For applications that require more than 1 GB of video memory — such as high-resolution texture sets or multi-monitor setups — the NVIDIA card has a clear structural advantage. The GTX 760M also has a higher pixel rate (11.50 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.02 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s), which could translate to faster fill-rate-bound workloads, though the benchmark data does not directly measure these. The NVIDIA part's TDP is listed at 55 W, while the AMD part has no TDP listed, making direct power comparison impossible from the pack.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X has an average benchmark score of 5416, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M averages 5236. This places the AMD part at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs and the NVIDIA part at the 31st percentile.

Q: How big is the performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card leads by 6% (5939 versus 5604). In Geekbench Vulkan, the lead narrows to 0.5% (4893 versus 4868). The AMD card wins both tests, giving it a 2-0 record in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card have any memory advantage?

A: Yes. The GTX 760M ships with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the M365X's 1 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus, and bandwidth is nearly identical (64.13 GB/s for NVIDIA versus 64.00 GB/s for AMD).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M has 768 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X has 384. The NVIDIA part also has 64 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs for AMD.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU based on average score?

A: For the AMD Radeon R7 M365X, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 610M, which scores 5444 (0.5% lower). The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 5467 (0.9% higher), and the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5370 (0.9% lower). For the GTX 760M, the closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211 (0.5% lower), followed by the GeForce 940M at 5284 (0.9% higher).

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life products. The AMD card was released in May 2015, and the NVIDIA card was released in May 2013.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most substantial win for the AMD Radeon R7 M365X comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD part scores 5939, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5604, giving AMD a 6% advantage. This is a meaningful gap in a compute-oriented benchmark, and it aligns with the average score difference of 3.4% (5416 versus 5236). The OpenCL result suggests that the AMD card's GCN architecture handles general-purpose compute tasks more efficiently, despite having half the shading units and a much smaller die.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. The AMD card wins again, but by only 0.5% — 4893 versus 4868. This is a razor-thin margin that could easily flip with driver updates or workload variations. The near-tie in Vulkan performance indicates that the two GPUs are closely matched in graphics API workloads, and the NVIDIA card's higher pixel and texture rates (11.50 GPixel/s and 46.02 GTexel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s) do not translate into a Vulkan advantage in this test. In fact, the NVIDIA part's raw throughput advantage in fill-rate metrics appears to be offset by other factors, possibly the lower clock speeds or architectural differences in how Kepler handles Vulkan draw calls.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the AMD card's 5416 average places it just 0.5% below the AMD Radeon 610M (5444) and 0.9% above the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5370). The NVIDIA card's 5236 average sits 0.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211) and 1.5% above the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161). Interestingly, the GTX 760M's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, which scores 5308 — just 1.3% higher — despite presumably occupying a different market segment. This clustering of scores in the 5200-5450 range underscores how tightly packed these mid-range mobile GPUs are in synthetic benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The most striking difference is in die size and transistor count: the NVIDIA GK106S measures 221 mm² with 2,540 million transistors, while the AMD Litho measures just 77 mm² with 950 million transistors. Transistor density is slightly higher on the AMD side (12.3M/mm² versus 11.5M/mm²). Clock speeds are only listed for the NVIDIA card, which has a 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost; the AMD card has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks are nearly identical (1000 MHz for AMD, 1002 MHz for NVIDIA), both yielding 4 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity differs by a factor of two: 1024 MB on the AMD card versus 2 GB on the NVIDIA card. Both use GDDR5 over a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth figures of 64.00 GB/s and 64.13 GB/s respectively. The compute configuration diverges sharply, with the NVIDIA card offering 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for AMD. This yields pixel rates of 11.50 GPixel/s (NVIDIA) and 6.600 GPixel/s (AMD), and texture rates of 46.02 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. FP32 performance follows the same pattern: 1,104.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 633.6 GFLOPS for AMD.

The bus interface also differs: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The NVIDIA card has a listed TDP of 55 W, an MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. The AMD card has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or display output data in the pack. API support shows a minor split: AMD lists DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while NVIDIA lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Release dates place the AMD card in May 2015 and the NVIDIA card in May 2013. The AMD card's predecessor is "Solar System" and its successor is "Polaris Mobile," while the NVIDIA card's predecessor is "GeForce 600M" and successor is "GeForce 800M."