AMD Radeon R7 M370 vs AMD Radeon R7 M465 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M370 wins the only recorded head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, by a decisive 20.9% margin. Its score of 7063 against the R7 M465’s 5841 puts the older card firmly ahead in raw compute workloads. The R7 M370 also has a Vulkan score of 6465, while the R7 M465 has no recorded Vulkan result, giving the M370 a clear edge in that API as well.

The R7 M465, however, is not without its strengths. It posts a higher pixel rate of 8.192 GPixel/s compared to the M370’s 7.680 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate of 24.58 GTexel/s versus 23.04 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the M465 can fill frames slightly faster in rasterization-bound scenarios, even though its overall compute score lags. The M465 also reaches a higher boost clock of 1024 MHz versus the M370’s 960 MHz, which helps explain its advantage in fill-rate metrics.

In terms of overall standing, the M370 sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the M465 sits lower at the 33rd percentile. The average benchmark score reflects this: 6764 for the M370 versus 5841 for the M465. For users prioritizing compute performance, general-purpose GPU tasks, or Vulkan compatibility, the M370 is the clear winner. For those who value theoretical pixel throughput or who are locked into a system that only supports the M465, the newer card holds its own in specific rasterization tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture. The R7 M370 is built on GCN 1.0, while the R7 M465 uses GCN 3.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the dies differ substantially. The M370 uses a chip called Litho, measuring 77 mm² with 950 million transistors. The M465 uses a larger Topaz chip, measuring 125 mm² with 1,550 million transistors. Transistor density is nearly identical, at 12.3M per mm² for the M370 and 12.4M per mm² for the M465.

Despite the larger die, the M465 does not translate that into more execution units. Both cards have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The architectural jump from GCN 1.0 to GCN 3.0 brings feature-level improvements, most notably in DirectX support. The M370 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), meaning the newer card can handle more advanced DirectX 12 features. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The M370 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 3.6 Gbps effective, yielding 57.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The M465 also has 2 GB of GDDR5, but on a 64-bit bus, with memory clocked at 4.5 Gbps effective, resulting in only 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a major architectural divergence: the M370 has 60% more memory bandwidth, which likely explains its large lead in the OpenCL compute benchmark. The M465 compensates with higher clock speeds, but the narrow bus is a bottleneck for memory-intensive workloads.

Power consumption figures are not recorded for either card, so no direct comparison can be made there. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, and both are marked as end-of-life products. The M370 was released in May 2015, while the M465 arrived about a year later in May 2016. Both list “Solar System” as a predecessor and “Polaris Mobile” as a successor, indicating they belong to the same product lineage despite the architectural differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The R7 M370 scores 7063, while the R7 M465 scores 5841. That is a 20.9% advantage for the M370. This is a substantial gap, especially considering both cards share the same shader count, TMU count, and ROP count. The difference must come down to memory bandwidth and architecture efficiency.

The M370’s 57.60 GB/s of bandwidth versus the M465’s 36.00 GB/s is the most obvious culprit. OpenCL workloads often stress memory throughput, and the M370 has a 128-bit bus versus the M465’s 64-bit bus. Even though the M465 has faster memory clocks (4.5 Gbps effective versus 3.6 Gbps), the narrower bus cuts its total bandwidth by more than a third. That alone can explain most of the 20.9% delta.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the M370’s average score of 6764 places it just above the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830, about 1% slower) and below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946, about 2.6% faster). It also beats the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698) by about 1% and the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612) by 2.3%. These are tight margins, suggesting the M370 is competitive with entry-level desktop and mid-range mobile GPUs of its era.

The M465’s average score of 5841 sits near the AMD Radeon R5 M435 (5859, about 0.3% faster) and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, about 1.9% faster). It is slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731) by 1.9% and trails the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929) by 1.5%. These are all very close scores, indicating the M465 lands in a crowded field of low-end GPUs. The data clearly shows the M370 outperforms the M465 by a wide margin in the one test they share.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 is significantly faster, scoring 7063 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5841 for the R7 M465, a 20.9% lead.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The performance difference comes from other factors like memory bandwidth and architecture.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The R7 M370 has 57.60 GB/s, while the R7 M465 has 36.00 GB/s. The M370 uses a 128-bit bus, while the M465 uses a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the R7 M465 support newer DirectX features?

A: Yes, the R7 M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R7 M370 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

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

A: The M370’s average score of 6764 is about 1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 and 2.3% above the AMD Radeon R7 M460. The M465’s average score of 5841 is about 1.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti and 1.5% below the Intel UHD Graphics 730.

Q: Is the R7 M465 a better choice for pixel-heavy tasks?

A: The M465 has a slightly higher pixel rate (8.192 GPixel/s versus 7.680 GPixel/s) and texture rate (24.58 GTexel/s versus 23.04 GTexel/s), so in theory it can rasterize faster, but its lower compute score and bandwidth make it weaker overall.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon R7 M370 is the stronger GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 20.9%, holds a higher percentile ranking (38th versus 33rd), and has a higher average benchmark score (6764 versus 5841). The M370’s 128-bit memory bus and 57.60 GB/s of bandwidth give it a massive advantage in compute workloads, which is where OpenCL and Vulkan tests operate.

The R7 M465 is not a total loss. Its GCN 3.0 architecture brings DirectX 12 (12_0) support, which the M370 lacks, and its higher boost clock (1024 MHz versus 960 MHz) results in slightly better pixel and texture fill rates. For a system that relies on those specific rasterization features, the M465 could be marginally better. But the database does not include any benchmark that favors the M465, and its narrower memory bus is a fundamental limitation.

For users choosing between these two, the M370 is the safer pick for general performance, especially if any workload touches compute, memory bandwidth, or Vulkan. The M465 makes sense only if DirectX 12 (12_0) feature support is a hard requirement, or if the system is pre-configured with the M465 and the M370 is not an option. Based on the recorded data, the M370 outperforms the M465 in every measured benchmark, and the gap is substantial.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Architecture: GCN 1.0 (M370) versus GCN 3.0 (M465)
• Chip: Litho (M370) versus Topaz (M465)
• Transistors: 950 million (M370) versus 1,550 million (M465)
• Die Size: 77 mm² (M370) versus 125 mm² (M465)
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² (M370) versus 12.4M / mm² (M465)
• Base Clock: 875 MHz (M370) versus 730 MHz (M465)
• Boost Clock: 960 MHz (M370) versus 1024 MHz (M465)
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz, 3.6 Gbps effective (M370) versus 1125 MHz, 4.5 Gbps effective (M465)
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit (M370) versus 64 bit (M465)
• Memory Bandwidth: 57.60 GB/s (M370) versus 36.00 GB/s (M465)
• Pixel Rate: 7.680 GPixel/s (M370) versus 8.192 GPixel/s (M465)
• Texture Rate: 23.04 GTexel/s (M370) versus 24.58 GTexel/s (M465)
• FP32 Performance: 737.3 GFLOPS (M370) versus 786.4 GFLOPS (M465)
• FP16 Performance: Not available (M370) versus 786.4 GFLOPS (M465, at 1:1 ratio)
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) (M370) versus 12 (12_0) (M465)
• Release Date: May 2015 (M370) versus May 2016 (M465)