GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 and Intel Arc A310 are separated by seven years of GPU architecture, and the benchmark data reflects that chasm clearly. The R9 M360, a 2015 GCN 1.0 part, posts an average benchmark score of 8,129, while the Arc A310, a 2022 Xe-HPG design, averages 7,550. Despite the Arc A310’s lower aggregate score, its raw compute performance in the two shared head-to-head tests is overwhelmingly higher, indicating that its average is dragged down by other factors. The data shows a tale of two very different design philosophies: one optimized for its era, the other for modern API workloads.

The Verdict

The Intel Arc A310 is the clear compute winner in direct comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A310 scores 30,607 against the R9 M360’s 8,211, a 73.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc A310 scores 28,964 versus 8,047, a 72.2% lead. Anyone needing modern API acceleration, ray tracing, or high-throughput FP32 work should choose the Arc A310 without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon R9 M360, however, holds a slight edge in overall benchmark consistency. Its average score of 8,129 places it in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A310’s 7,550 average sits in the 40th percentile. The R9 M360’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135, delta -0.1%), while the Arc A310’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557, delta -0.1%). The R9 M360 is effectively a statistical tie with the GTX 950M, while the Arc A310 is likewise tied with the R7 250.

The verdict depends on workload. For legacy DirectX 11 or OpenGL applications where the R9 M360’s GCN architecture was tuned, the data suggests it remains competitive. For any modern workload using Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate, the Arc A310 is categorically superior, offering roughly 3.7x the OpenCL performance and 3.6x the Vulkan performance. The R9 M360 wins no head-to-head tests in this comparison; the Arc A310 wins both.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is enormous. The R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip on GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm TSMC process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The Arc A310 uses the DG2-128 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, built on a 6 nm TSMC process. It contains 7,200 million transistors in a 157 mm² die, achieving 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter, nearly four times the density.

The R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The Arc A310 has 768 shading units (50% more), the same 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, but adds 6 dedicated ray tracing cores. The R9 M360 has no ray tracing hardware, which is expected for a 2015 part. The Arc A310 also supports FP16 computation at 5.376 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the R9 M360 has no listed FP16 capability.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The R9 M360 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A310 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yet achieves 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, a 72% improvement despite half the bus width, thanks to much faster memory clocks. The R9 M360’s memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the Arc A310’s runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Process node and transistor count tell the story of efficiency. The R9 M360 has no listed TDP, while the Arc A310 is rated at 30 W with no power connectors required and a suggested 200 W PSU. The R9 M360 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc A310 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M360 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks paint a stark picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A310 scores 30,607, which is 22,396 points higher than the R9 M360’s 8,211. The delta is -73.2% from the Arc A310’s perspective, meaning the R9 M360 delivers only about a quarter of the Arc’s compute throughput. This result aligns with the FP32 peak rates: the Arc A310 reaches 2.688 TFLOPS, while the R9 M360 peaks at 947.2 GFLOPS, a 2.8x difference.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly but remains decisive. The Arc A310 scores 28,964 versus the R9 M360’s 8,047, a 72.2% delta. The Vulkan result is notable because the R9 M360’s Vulkan support is capped at version 1.2.170, while the Arc A310 supports Vulkan 1.4. The Arc’s hardware-accelerated ray tracing cores (6 of them) likely contribute to its Vulkan advantage, though the test score itself aggregates all workloads.

The R9 M360’s best individual result is its Geekbench OpenCL score of 8,211, which is actually its higher of the two. The Arc A310’s best is its OpenCL score of 30,607. Across all benchmarks listed for the Arc A310, its Passmark G3D score of 5,433 and Passmark G2D score of 625 show that its strengths are compute-oriented rather than 2D rasterization. Its Passmark DirectX scores are notably low (31 for DX10, 33 for DX11, 29 for DX12, 69 for DX9), suggesting driver overhead or architectural inefficiency in legacy API paths.

The win count is decisive: the Arc A310 wins 2 of 2 head-to-head tests. The R9 M360 wins none. This is a complete sweep, with the average margin exceeding 72%.

Specification Differences

The specifications where these two GPUs diverge are numerous and significant:

• Architecture: GCN 1.0 (R9 M360) versus Xe-HPG (Arc A310)
• Process Node: 28 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 1,500 million versus 7,200 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² versus 157 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² versus 45.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 900 MHz versus 1750 MHz
• Boost Clock: 925 MHz versus 1750 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 72.00 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 512 versus 768
• Ray Tracing Cores: None versus 6
• Pixel Rate: 14.80 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 29.60 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 947.2 GFLOPS versus 2.688 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: Not listed versus 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: Not listed versus 30 W
• Slot Width: Not listed versus Single-slot
• Power Connectors: Not listed versus None
• Suggested PSU: Not listed versus 200 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: Not listed versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 versus 1.4
• Release Date: 2015-05-04 versus 2022-10-11

The R9 M360 and Arc A310 share identical memory capacity (4 GB), TMU count (32), ROP count (16), and OpenGL support (4.6). Both are marked as end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A310 is decisively ahead. Its FP32 peak is 2.688 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the R9 M360. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc scores 30,607 versus 8,211, a 73.2% advantage.

Q: Does the R9 M360 win any benchmark against the Arc A310?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Arc A310 winning both shared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan). The R9 M360 records 0 wins, while the Arc A310 records 2 wins.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare despite the different bus widths?

A: The Arc A310 has a 64-bit bus but achieves 124.0 GB/s using GDDR6 at 15.5 Gbps effective. The R9 M360 has a 128-bit bus but only reaches 72.00 GB/s with GDDR5 at 4.5 Gbps effective. The Arc A310 provides 72% more bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports modern graphics APIs better?

A: The Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, along with 6 ray tracing cores. The R9 M360 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, with no ray tracing support.

Q: How do their overall percentile rankings compare?

A: The R9 M360 sits in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 8,129. The Arc A310 sits in the 40th percentile with an average score of 7,550. Despite the Arc’s higher peak compute, its average is lower, indicating inconsistent performance across different workload types.

Q: What are their closest rivals according to the data?

A: The R9 M360’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135, -0.1% delta). The Arc A310’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557, -0.1% delta). Both GPUs are statistically tied with their respective nearest competitors.