AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X and AMD Radeon R9 M360 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD’s Gem System generation, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process with an identical 1,500 million transistor count and 123 mm² die size. Despite their architectural kinship, the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, with the older M265X taking the lead in the only direct comparison available. This analysis draws exclusively from the provided benchmark results and specification data to quantify the differences between these two GCN 1.0 parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it decisively favors the AMD Radeon R9 M265X. The M265X scores 8,851 points, while the R9 M360 trails at 8,211 points, resulting in a 7.8% performance advantage for the M265X. This is a substantial margin for two GPUs from the same architectural family, and it flips the expected generational narrative — the newer M360 does not outperform its predecessor in compute workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the M265X’s average score of 8,851 places it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the M360’s average of 8,129 lands in the 42nd percentile. This two-percentile gap reinforces the head-to-head result, indicating that the M265X is not merely faster in a single test but holds a consistent edge across its benchmark profile. The M265X’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, which scores 8,863 — a negligible 0.1% difference — while the M360 sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (score 8,135) and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (score 8,099).

The M265X also compares favorably against NVIDIA’s mobile lineup, sitting 1.2% ahead of both the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (score 8,746) and the GeForce GTX 460 v2 (score 8,743). In contrast, the M360’s rival set includes the GeForce GTX 980 (score 8,167), which is 0.5% faster, and the NVIDIA GRID K2 (score 8,080), which the M360 leads by 0.6%. These figures show that while both AMD parts are competitive in their respective performance tiers, the M265X consistently punches above its weight, matching or beating higher-tier competitors.

It is worth remembering the M360 has an additional benchmark entry — a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,047 — which the M265X lacks. However, this does not alter the OpenCL-based head-to-head verdict, as the Vulkan result is not part of the direct comparison.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon R9 M265X is the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads. Its 7.8% lead over the M360 in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with its higher percentile ranking (44th vs. 42nd), makes it the clear winner in raw performance. The M265X’s score of 8,851 also places it closer to the performance of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (within 0.1%), whereas the M360’s 8,129 average puts it in a lower tier, competing with NVIDIA’s mid-range mobile parts like the GeForce GTX 950M.

For users prioritizing compute performance, the M265X is the obvious pick. Its higher shading unit count (640 vs. 512) and texture mapping units (40 vs. 32) directly contribute to its superior OpenCL results, despite its lower clock speeds. The M360, however, offers a different trade-off: a larger 4 GB memory pool versus the M265X’s 2 GB, along with higher memory bandwidth (72.00 GB/s vs. 64.00 GB/s). This makes the M360 potentially more suitable for workloads that are memory-capacity intensive, such as larger textures or datasets that exceed the M265X’s 2 GB frame buffer.

The M360 also has a higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s vs. 10.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (29.60 GTexel/s vs. 25.00 GTexel/s), driven by its higher boost clock of 925 MHz compared to the M265X’s 625 MHz. However, these advantages in fill rates do not translate into a win in the OpenCL benchmark, suggesting that the M265X’s additional compute units are more impactful for the tested workload.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the specific use case. If raw compute throughput is the goal, the M265X wins outright. If memory capacity and higher fill rates are more critical, the M360 presents a compelling alternative, albeit with a 7.8% compute penalty. The data does not support a scenario where the M360 outperforms the M265X in the measured OpenCL metric, so the verdict leans firmly toward the M265X for general-purpose GPU compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X is faster, scoring 8,851 compared to the AMD Radeon R9 M360’s 8,211, a 7.8% difference.

Q: How does the M265X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The M265X is within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (score 8,863) and 1.2% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (score 8,746) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (score 8,743).

Q: Does the M360 have any benchmark advantage over the M265X?

A: The M360 has an additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,047, but this test is not part of the direct head-to-head comparison. In the shared OpenCL test, the M360 trails by 7.8%.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each GPU?

A: The M265X ranks in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the M360 ranks in the 42nd percentile, based on their average benchmark scores of 8,851 and 8,129, respectively.

Q: How does the M360 perform against NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 950M?

A: The M360’s average score of 8,129 is within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 950M’s 8,135, making them statistically equivalent in performance.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X has 640 shading units, while the R9 M360 has 512, a difference that likely contributes to the M265X’s OpenCL lead.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share several core specifications: both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, feature 1,500 million transistors, have a 123 mm² die size, and use the same PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. They also both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, with identical 16 ROPs.

The primary differences lie in their compute and memory configurations:

• Shading Units: The M265X has 640, while the M360 has 512.
• Texture Mapping Units: The M265X has 40, while the M360 has 32.
• Base Clock: The M265X runs at 575 MHz, while the M360 runs at 900 MHz.
• Boost Clock: The M265X boosts to 625 MHz, while the M360 boosts to 925 MHz.
• Memory Size: The M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the M360 has 4 GB of GDDR5.
• Memory Clock: The M265X runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the M360 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).
• Memory Bandwidth: The M265X delivers 64.00 GB/s, while the M360 delivers 72.00 GB/s.
• Pixel Rate: The M265X achieves 10.00 GPixel/s, while the M360 achieves 14.80 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The M265X achieves 25.00 GTexel/s, while the M360 achieves 29.60 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The M265X computes 800.0 GFLOPS, while the M360 computes 947.2 GFLOPS.
• Release Date: The M265X launched on 2014-03-20, while the M360 launched on 2015-05-04.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs utilize AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, with the M265X based on the Venus chip and the M360 on the Tropo chip. Despite the different chip names, they share the same 28 nm manufacturing process, identical transistor counts (1,500 million), and the same die size (123 mm²), resulting in an identical transistor density of 12.2M / mm². Both are part of the Gem System generation, with the M265X belonging to the R9 M200 series and the M360 to the R9 M300 series. Their production status is End-of-life for both, and they share the same predecessor (Solar System) and successor (Polaris Mobile).

The architectural differences are primarily in chip configuration rather than fundamental design. The M265X’s Venus chip allocates more resources to shading units (640 vs. 512) and TMUs (40 vs. 32), which explains its superior OpenCL performance despite lower clock speeds. The M360’s Tropo chip, conversely, operates at substantially higher clocks (925 MHz boost vs. 625 MHz) and features a larger memory interface in terms of capacity (4 GB vs. 2 GB) and bandwidth (72.00 GB/s vs. 64.00 GB/s). This results in the M360 achieving higher pixel and texture rates, as well as higher FP32 throughput (947.2 GFLOPS vs. 800.0 GFLOPS), even though it loses in the compute benchmark. The memory bus width is 128 bit for both, and both use GDDR5 memory, but the M360’s higher memory clock of 1125 MHz (vs. 1000 MHz) gives it the bandwidth edge. Neither GPU features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as indicated by null values for those fields, and both support the same API set, including Vulkan 1.2.170.