AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by a wide performance gulf. Based on the benchmark data, the GTX 980M is decisively faster in every measured test, while the R7 M365X sits in a much lower performance tier. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and use-case implications derived strictly from the supplied fact pack.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains two direct comparison points, and in both, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M dominates. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 980M scores 23,832 against the R7 M365X’s 5,939. That is a delta of -75.1% from the perspective of the AMD part, meaning the NVIDIA GPU delivers roughly four times the raw compute performance in this workload. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: the GTX 980M posts 17,703 points versus 4,893 for the R7 M365X, a -72.4% delta. The NVIDIA card wins both head-to-head benchmarks, giving it a 2-0 record in this comparison.

These are not marginal differences. The Geekbench OpenCL score gap alone is 17,893 points, which dwarfs the entire average benchmark score of the AMD card. Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the GTX 980M’s PassMark G3D score of 7,338 and PassMark GPU Compute score of 2,816 further reinforce its superiority. The R7 M365X has no corresponding PassMark entries in the fact pack, but its Geekbench scores—5,939 OpenCL and 4,893 Vulkan—are consistently below the NVIDIA part’s figures by a wide margin. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the GTX 980M averages 5,308, while the R7 M365X averages 5,416, which is only 2% higher—a curious inversion given the head-to-head results. This suggests the average includes different test mixes, but in the direct comparisons available, the GTX 980M is unequivocally faster.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different vendors. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with a chip codenamed “Litho,” fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, by contrast, uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with a GM204 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die—transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is over five times larger in die area and holds more than five times the transistor count.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The R7 M365X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 980M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, for 160.4 GB/s—2.5 times the bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the AMD part has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA card runs at a base clock of 1038 MHz and boost of 1127 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The compute resources are equally lopsided: the R7 M365X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs—exactly four times the shading units, four times the TMUs, and eight times the ROPs.

Pixel and texture rates follow suit. The R7 M365X achieves 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s, while the GTX 980M reaches 72.13 GPixel/s and 108.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 633.6 GFLOPS for the AMD part versus 3.462 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA—a 5.5x gap. API support differs too: the R7 M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface also differs: the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses MXM-B (3.0), reflecting its modular mobile design. The GTX 980M is listed as an MXM Module with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the R7 M365X has no slot width or display output details listed.

Where Each One Wins

Given the head-to-head results, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins in every category where direct comparison data exists. It wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, and its PassMark scores—G3D at 7,338, GPU Compute at 2,816, and even DirectX 9 at 125—indicate strong legacy and compute performance. The GTX 980M also has a clear advantage in memory capacity and bandwidth, making it suitable for workloads that demand large textures or high-resolution assets. Its 8 GB frame buffer is eight times larger than the R7 M365X’s 1 GB, and its 160.4 GB/s bandwidth is 2.5 times higher.

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X, however, shows a slight edge in the average benchmark score comparison. Its average of 5,416 is 2% higher than the GTX 980M’s 5,308, and it sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon 610M (5,444) and 0.9% of the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5,370) among its nearest rivals. The GTX 980M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5,317, -0.2% delta) and the GeForce 840M (5,322, -0.3% delta), placing it in a similar performance neighborhood to much lower-tier NVIDIA parts in average terms. This suggests the GTX 980M’s average is dragged down by its PassMark DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 scores (125 and 35, respectively), which are low relative to its G3D score. Meanwhile, the R7 M365X has no PassMark data, so its average is based solely on Geekbench results. In practice, the R7 M365X wins only in the narrow sense of having a higher average benchmark score, but that is an artifact of test selection rather than a genuine performance advantage.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the clear choice for any workload that prioritizes raw performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 75% or more, offers 8 GB of memory versus 1 GB, and has four times the shading units, TMUs, and eight times the ROPs. Users who need high frame rates in modern DirectX 12 titles, compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL, or Vulkan applications should select the GTX 980M without hesitation. Its FP32 throughput of 3.462 TFLOPS is over five times the R7 M365X’s 633.6 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 72.13 GPixel/s is nearly eleven times higher.

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X is only preferable in scenarios where its lower resource footprint matters—though the fact pack provides no power or thermal figures to quantify that. Its 77 mm² die and 950 million transistors suggest a much simpler, lower-power design, but without TDP data, that remains qualitative. The R7 M365X also supports PCIe 3.0 x8, which may be more compatible with certain thin-and-light laptop designs, whereas the GTX 980M requires an MXM-B slot. For users constrained to a system that only accepts the AMD part, the R7 M365X is serviceable, but the benchmark results indicate it is not competitive with the GTX 980M in any measured performance metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins with a score of 23,832, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M365X’s 5,939, a delta of -75.1% for the AMD part.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X has 1024 MB of GDDR5, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 980M offers 160.4 GB/s on a 256-bit bus, while the R7 M365X provides 64.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus—the NVIDIA card has 2.5 times the bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The R7 M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, exactly four times the 384 shading units of the R7 M365X.

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

A: The R7 M365X has an average benchmark score of 5,416, while the GTX 980M averages 5,308—a 2% difference in favor of the AMD part, despite losing both head-to-head tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M365X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M |

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

| Chip | Litho | GM204 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | None listed | 1038 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None listed | 1127 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 24 | 96 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 72.13 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 19.80 GTexel/s | 108.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 633.6 GFLOPS | 3.462 TFLOPS |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Slot Width | Not listed | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | Portable Device Dependent |