AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs AMD Radeon R9 M375X Comparison

Both AMD Radeon R9 M375X and AMD Radeon R9 M360 are end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the Gem System (R9 M300) generation, built on the same Tropo chip and GCN 1.0 architecture. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner: the R9 M375X takes both head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 8325 against the R9 M360’s 8129. That 2.4% gap in average score is modest, but the distribution of wins reveals a more nuanced story about where each card fits. The R9 M375X carries a higher compute configuration, while the R9 M360 counters with double the memory capacity. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed, so the analysis here rests entirely on architectural specifications and benchmark results.

Where Each One Wins

The R9 M375X wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, making it the outright performance leader in this pairing. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 8273 against the R9 M360’s 8211, a 0.8% margin. The advantage widens substantially in Geekbench Vulkan, where the R9 M375X posts 8377 versus 8047, a 4.1% lead. These results indicate that the R9 M375X is the stronger choice for compute workloads that leverage either OpenCL or Vulkan APIs. Its higher shading unit count (640 versus 512) and faster clocks (1015 MHz boost versus 925 MHz boost) translate directly into measurable performance gains across both tested APIs.

The R9 M360, while losing both benchmarks, does hold one clear specification advantage: memory capacity. It offers 4 GB of GDDR5, exactly double the R9 M375X’s 2 GB. This does not show up as a win in either Geekbench test, but it suggests a use case where the R9 M360 could be preferable for workloads that are memory-capacity-bound rather than compute-bound. The R9 M360’s average score of 8129 places it at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, just one point below the R9 M375X’s 43rd percentile. In practical terms, the R9 M360 is not far behind in raw compute, but it cannot claim a single benchmark victory in this direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture: the Tropo chip built on GCN 1.0, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 1,500 million, and the die size is the same at 123 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². They also share the same memory bus width of 128 bit, the same memory type (GDDR5), and the same effective memory speed of 4.5 Gbps, resulting in identical memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface and support the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The differences begin with the compute units. The R9 M375X has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R9 M360 scales down to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and retains 16 ROPs. This 20% reduction in shading units and TMUs directly impacts the R9 M360’s throughput rates. The pixel rate drops from 16.24 GPixel/s on the R9 M375X to 14.80 GPixel/s on the R9 M360, while the texture rate falls from 40.60 GTexel/s to 29.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute figure is also lower on the R9 M360: 947.2 GFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS on the R9 M375X.

Clock speeds differ as well. The R9 M375X runs at a base clock of 925 MHz with a boost of 1015 MHz, while the R9 M360 operates at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Both have a memory clock of 1125 MHz. The R9 M360 compensates for its reduced compute resources with a 4 GB frame buffer, which may help in scenarios where larger textures or datasets need to reside on the GPU. Neither card lists a TDP, slot width, power connectors, or suggested PSU, so power characteristics remain unspecified in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a narrow victory for the R9 M375X. It scores 8273, while the R9 M360 scores 8211, a delta of just 0.8%. This is within the range of run-to-run variance one might expect from similar hardware, but the consistency of the R9 M375X’s higher score across both tests suggests it is not a fluke. The R9 M375X’s nearest rival in average score is the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 at 8265, with the R9 M375X leading by 0.7%. On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8427 leads the R9 M375X by 1.2%.

The Geekbench Vulkan test delivers a more decisive result. The R9 M375X scores 8377, while the R9 M360 scores 8047, giving the R9 M375X a 4.1% advantage. This is the single largest delta between the two cards in any measured metric. The R9 M360’s Vulkan score is actually lower than its OpenCL score, while the R9 M375X improves slightly from OpenCL to Vulkan. This suggests the R9 M375X handles the Vulkan API more efficiently, possibly due to its higher shading unit count and clock speeds. The R9 M360’s nearest rival in average score is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M at 8135, with the R9 M360 trailing by 0.1%, essentially a statistical tie.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X is the clear pick for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score (8325 versus 8129), and sits at a higher percentile rank (43 versus 42). Its advantages in shading units (640 versus 512), boost clock (1015 MHz versus 925 MHz), and FP32 throughput (1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS) all contribute to a measurable performance lead, particularly in Vulkan workloads where it extends its margin to 4.1%. The R9 M375X also compares favorably to its nearest rivals, sitting within 1.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and within 1.2% of the GTX 675MX.

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 is the better choice only if memory capacity outweighs compute performance. Its 4 GB frame buffer is double that of the R9 M375X, and it maintains the same 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. For users running workloads that require larger memory footprints — such as certain content creation tasks or multi-monitor setups — the R9 M360’s extra memory could be the deciding factor. However, the benchmark data shows no scenario where this translates into a win. The R9 M360’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, beats it by just 0.1%, placing it in a similar performance tier. Ultimately, the R9 M375X is the stronger GPU on every measured benchmark, and the R9 M360’s only unique advantage is its larger memory buffer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375X has an average benchmark score of 8325, while the AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8129, a difference of 2.4% in favor of the R9 M375X.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the R9 M375X scores 8377 against the R9 M360’s 8047, giving the R9 M375X a 4.1% lead.

Q: How do the two cards compare in shading units?

A: The R9 M375X has 640 shading units, while the R9 M360 has 512, a difference of 128 units that contributes to the R9 M375X’s higher FP32 throughput of 1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Do both cards use the same memory bus width?

A: Yes, both the R9 M375X and R9 M360 use a 128-bit memory bus with GDDR5 memory, and both achieve a bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M360 has 4 GB of memory, which is double the 2 GB found on the AMD Radeon R9 M375X.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The R9 M375X ranks at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M360 ranks at the 42nd percentile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification areas, all stemming from the R9 M375X’s larger compute configuration. The R9 M375X has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This leads to higher throughput rates on the R9 M375X: a pixel rate of 16.24 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 40.60 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is also significantly higher on the R9 M375X at 1,299.2 GFLOPS, compared to 947.2 GFLOPS on the R9 M360.

Clock speeds differ, with the R9 M375X running at a 925 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost, while the R9 M360 runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Memory capacity is the one area where the R9 M360 leads, offering 4 GB versus the R9 M375X’s 2 GB, though both use GDDR5 at 1125 MHz with a 128-bit bus and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both cards share the same process node (28 nm), transistor count (1,500 million), die size (123 mm²), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16), and API support (DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170). Neither card lists a TDP, slot width, power connectors, or display outputs, so those remain unspecified.