AMD Radeon R7 M370 vs AMD Radeon RX 6400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct benchmark comparisons between these cards, and the results are decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32,011 points against the AMD Radeon R7 M370's 7,063 points. That is a delta of -77.9% from the perspective of the older card, meaning the RX 6400 delivers roughly 4.5 times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The R7 M370's score of 7,063 places it in the company of the AMD FirePro M5100 (6,830, delta -1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6,698, delta 1%), so it is not an outlier in its own generation, but the gulf to the newer part is enormous.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story. The RX 6400 records 16,372 points, while the R7 M370 manages 6,465. That is a -60.5% delta, meaning the RX 6400 is about 2.5 times faster. Notably, the R7 M370's Vulkan score is only about 8% lower than its OpenCL score (6,465 vs. 7,063), suggesting the older GCN architecture handles both APIs with similar efficiency. The RX 6400, by contrast, shows a much larger drop from OpenCL to Vulkan (32,011 down to 16,372), which hints that its OpenCL path is particularly strong relative to its Vulkan performance. Still, even in its weaker API, the newer card beats the older one's best result by a wide margin.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the R7 M370 holds an average score of 6,764 across all recorded tests, while the RX 6400 averages 6,001. That is a counterintuitive result: the newer card wins the head-to-head tests decisively, yet its overall average is lower. The reason is visible in the full benchmark list. The RX 6400's average is dragged down by several low scores in Passmark tests, including 54 in DirectX 10, 70 in DirectX 11, and 30 in DirectX 12. These are likely legacy or synthetic workloads that do not reflect the card's actual gaming capability, but they pull the aggregate down. The R7 M370, with only two recorded benchmarks, does not have those low-scoring entries to contend with. This is a reminder that average scores can mislead when the test suites differ in composition.

The percentile rankings reinforce the point. The R7 M370 sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6400 sits at the 35th. Both are near the middle of the distribution, but the older card is technically higher. This does not mean the R7 M370 is the better product; it means the RX 6400's low Passmark scores are penalizing its percentile position. In the two tests where both cards appear, the RX 6400 wins every time, and the margins are not close.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the superior GPU. In every direct head-to-head comparison, it wins by margins that range from 60.5% to 77.9%. The R7 M370 cannot compete in compute performance, and its only advantages are historical: it was released in 2015, uses less modern technology, and has a smaller footprint in the database. For anyone choosing between these two based on measured performance, the RX 6400 is the only rational pick.

That said, the R7 M370 is not without context. Its average score of 6,764 is higher than the RX 6400's 6,001, and its percentile ranking is slightly better (38 vs. 35). A casual reader looking only at those two numbers might conclude the older card is faster, but the head-to-head results contradict that. The R7 M370's average is inflated by having just two benchmarks, both of which are compute-oriented and happen to be its strong suit. The RX 6400's average is depressed by Passmark tests that likely stress legacy DirectX paths. The verdict should be based on the direct comparisons, not the aggregate.

For a user with a modern workload, the RX 6400 offers 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, 128 GB/s of bandwidth, and 3.565 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The R7 M370 offers 2 GB of GDDR5, 57.60 GB/s, and 737.3 GFLOPS. The newer card is in a different performance class. The only scenario where the R7 M370 makes sense is one where the workload is extremely light, the system is legacy, and the user does not care about modern API support. Even then, the RX 6400's higher launch MSRP of 159 USD is the only cost consideration, and the data does not suggest any performance reason to choose the older part.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras of AMD's GPU design. The R7 M370 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The RX 6400 uses RDNA 2.0, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, with 5,400 million transistors in a 107 mm² die. That is a density of 50.5 million per square millimeter, more than four times the older chip's density. The newer process allows far more transistors in a similar area, which explains the massive compute advantage despite only a modest increase in die size.

The memory systems differ fundamentally. The R7 M370 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) for 57.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), yielding 128.0 GB/s. The RX 6400 achieves more than double the bandwidth despite a narrower bus, thanks to the much higher data rate of GDDR6. The capacity advantage is also significant: 4 GB vs. 2 GB.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The R7 M370 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is exactly double in each category, and the clock speeds amplify the difference. The R7 M370's base clock is 875 MHz with a 960 MHz boost. The RX 6400's base is 1923 MHz, with a game clock of 2039 MHz and a boost of 2321 MHz. The newer card's clocks are more than twice as high, and its pixel rate (74.27 GPixel/s) and texture rate (111.4 GTexel/s) dwarf the R7 M370's 7.680 GPixel/s and 23.04 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.565 TFLOPS vs. 737.3 GFLOPS, a factor of roughly 4.8x.

The RX 6400 also introduces features the R7 M370 lacks. It has 12 ray tracing cores, a hallmark of RDNA 2.0, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The R7 M370 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the R7 M370 lists 1.2.170, while the RX 6400 lists 1.4. The RX 6400 draws 53 W of power, uses a single-slot form factor, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The R7 M370 has no recorded TDP or power specifications. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M370, PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6400. The newer card's PCIe 4.0 interface provides more bandwidth per lane, which matters for a card with a narrower x4 connection. The display outputs also differ, with the RX 6400 offering 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R7 M370 has no recorded outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32,011 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M370 scores 7,063. That is a -77.9% delta, meaning the RX 6400 is roughly 4.5 times faster.

Q: Does the R7 M370 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests recorded (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RX 6400 wins both. The R7 M370 has zero wins in the database.

Q: Why does the R7 M370 have a higher average benchmark score than the RX 6400?

A: The R7 M370 averages 6,764 across only two benchmarks, both compute-oriented. The RX 6400 averages 6,001 across ten benchmarks, including several Passmark tests (DirectX 10, 11, 12) that return very low scores (54, 70, 30). Those low scores drag the average down despite the RX 6400's decisive wins in the head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The R7 M370 has 57.60 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The RX 6400 has 128.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The RX 6400 delivers more than twice the bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

Q: Does the RX 6400 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 12 ray tracing cores. The R7 M370 has no ray tracing cores, as it is built on the older GCN 1.0 architecture.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The R7 M370 was released on 2015-05-04, while the RX 6400 was released on 2022-01-18. The RX 6400 is nearly seven years newer in release timing.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins in every measurable compute scenario. It takes the OpenCL test with 32,011 vs. 7,063, and the Vulkan test with 16,372 vs. 6,465. It also wins on bandwidth (128.0 GB/s vs. 57.60 GB/s), on FP32 throughput (3.565 TFLOPS vs. 737.3 GFLOPS), and on pixel rate (74.27 GPixel/s vs. 7.680 GPixel/s). For any modern gaming or compute workload, the RX 6400 is the clear choice. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory also gives it more headroom for texture-heavy scenes, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support means it can run the latest graphics features, including ray tracing.

The AMD Radeon R7 M370's only "wins" are contextual. It has a higher average benchmark score (6,764 vs. 6,001) and a higher percentile ranking (38 vs. 35), but those are artifacts of the test suite composition. It also has a lower transistor count (950 million vs. 5,400 million) and a smaller die (77 mm² vs. 107 mm²), which could matter for thermal or power considerations if the system is extremely constrained. However, the RX 6400's 53 W TDP and lack of power connectors suggest it is also a low-power part. The R7 M370's lower pixel rate (7.680 GPixel/s) means it is suited only to very light 2D or older 3D workloads. There is no benchmark in the database where the R7 M370 outperforms the RX 6400, so any practical use case should favor the newer card.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is 28 nm for the R7 M370 vs. 6 nm for the RX 6400. Transistor count is 950 million vs. 5,400 million. Die size is 77 mm² vs. 107 mm², and transistor density is 12.3M / mm² vs. 50.5M / mm². Base clock is 875 MHz vs. 1923 MHz, boost clock is 960 MHz vs. 2321 MHz. The RX 6400 also has a game clock of 2039 MHz, which the R7 M370 lacks. Memory size is 2 GB vs. 4 GB, type is GDDR5 vs. GDDR6, bus width is 128 bit vs. 64 bit, and bandwidth is 57.60 GB/s vs. 128.0 GB/s. The R7 M370's memory clock is 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the RX 6400's is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Shading units are 384 vs. 768, TMUs are 24 vs. 48, and ROPs are 8 vs. 32. The RX 6400 has 12 ray tracing cores; the R7 M370 has none. Pixel rate is 7.680 GPixel/s vs. 74.27 GPixel/s, texture rate is 23.04 GTexel/s vs. 111.4 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 737.3 GFLOPS vs. 3.565 TFLOPS. The RX 6400 also lists FP16 at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1), which the R7 M370 does not record. TDP is not specified for the R7 M370, while the RX 6400 is rated at 53 W. The RX 6400 is single-slot, has no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The R7 M370 has no recorded slot width, power connectors, or PSU suggestion.

Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M370 vs. PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6400. Display outputs are not recorded for the R7 M370, while the RX 6400 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support is 12 (11_1) vs. 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Vulkan is 1.2.170 vs. 1.4. The release dates are 2015-05-04 vs. 2022-01-18. The R7 M370's generation is "Gem System (R7 M300)" and its predecessor is "Solar System" with successor "Polaris Mobile". The RX 6400's generation is "Navi II (RX 6000)", its predecessor is "Navi", and its successor is "Navi III". The RX 6400 has a launch MSRP of 159 USD, while the R7 M370 has no recorded launch price. Both cards are marked end-of-life in the database.