AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by nearly four years of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive performance gap, with the GTX 1650 dominating both shared benchmark tests, yet the R9 M360 retains a distinct identity as a legacy part with its own historical context. This analysis breaks down where each GPU stands based strictly on the benchmark results and technical specifications provided.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data offers a clear and unambiguous split: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins every single head-to-head comparison. In the two shared tests, the GTX 1650 secures victory in both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, leaving the AMD Radeon R9 M360 with zero wins. This is a complete sweep, indicating that the GTX 1650 is the superior performer across both compute and graphics workloads.

The R9 M360, by contrast, finds its footing not in raw performance but in its historical positioning. Its average benchmark score of 8129 places it in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1650’s average score is 7472, sitting in the 40th percentile. This is a curious inversion: the R9 M360 actually has a higher average score and percentile ranking despite losing both head-to-head tests. The reason lies in the benchmark suites used. The R9 M360’s scores come from Geekbench tests only, while the GTX 1650’s average is dragged down by a broader set of Passmark tests, including low DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 scores of 124 and 39, respectively, which are not part of the R9 M360’s evaluation.

For users prioritizing legacy compatibility, the R9 M360 holds its own against its contemporary rivals. Its nearest competitors include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, with a deltaPct of -0.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce 945M, with a deltaPct of 0.4%. These margins are razor-thin, showing that the R9 M360 was squarely competitive within its 2015-era peer group. The GTX 1650, conversely, sits near the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (deltaPct 0.3%) and Intel UHD Graphics 750 (deltaPct 0.4%), but its performance class is entirely different, as evidenced by the massive benchmark deltas in the head-to-head.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The AMD Radeon R9 M360 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Tropo chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a mature, power-efficient design from 2015, with 1,500 million transistors packed into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 employs the Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip, on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. The GTX 1650 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 23.5M per mm².

These process and architecture differences translate directly into compute resources. The R9 M360 features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1650 more than doubles the shading units to 896, nearly doubles the TMUs to 56, and doubles the ROPs to 32. The clock speeds tell a similar story: the R9 M360 runs at a base of 900 MHz with a boost of 925 MHz, while the GTX 1650 starts at 1485 MHz and boosts to 1665 MHz. This combination of more cores and higher clocks leads to dramatically different throughput figures. The R9 M360 delivers a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s, while the GTX 1650 achieves 53.28 GPixel/s and 93.24 GTexel/s, respectively.

Memory configurations are identical in capacity and bus width—both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface—but the effective speeds diverge. The R9 M360 runs its memory at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), yielding 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650’s memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), providing 128.1 GB/s. This near-doubling of bandwidth is critical for modern textures and compute workloads. The FP32 performance gap is stark: the R9 M360 delivers 947.2 GFLOPS, while the GTX 1650 reaches 2.984 TFLOPS, a more than threefold advantage. The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature entirely absent from the R9 M360.

API support also reflects the generational divide. The R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer DirectX and Vulkan versions on the GTX 1650 enable features and optimizations not available on the older AMD part. Physically, the GTX 1650 is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width, requiring no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, with a TDP of 75 W. The R9 M360 has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connector specifications, indicating it was designed for lower-power mobile integration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks paint a definitive picture of performance disparity. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8211, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29629. This represents a deltaPct of -72.3% from the perspective of the R9 M360, meaning the GTX 1650 is roughly 3.6 times faster in raw compute throughput. The margin is substantial and reflects the combined effects of more shading units, higher clocks, and superior memory bandwidth.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even wider gap. The R9 M360 scores 8047, while the GTX 1650 achieves 33042, a deltaPct of -75.6%. This test stresses graphics API efficiency and low-level hardware utilization, areas where the Turing architecture’s modern design excels. The R9 M360’s Vulkan support is version 1.2.170, while the GTX 1650’s is 1.4, which may contribute to the latter’s stronger showing in this workload. The GTX 1650 also has additional benchmark results not available for the R9 M360, including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305, Passmark DirectX 10 score of 39, DirectX 11 score of 58, DirectX 12 score of 35, DirectX 9 score of 124, G2D score of 561, G3D score of 7880, and GPU Compute score of 3048. These figures, while not directly comparable to the R9 M360, further illustrate the GTX 1650’s broader testing profile and its strengths in compute-oriented tasks.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior GPU in every measurable head-to-head comparison. It wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests by margins exceeding 70%, and its architectural advantages—more shading units, higher clocks, faster memory, and newer API support—make it the clear choice for any modern workload. The GTX 1650’s launch MSRP of 149 USD positions it as a mainstream part, and its performance reflects that ambition.

The AMD Radeon R9 M360, however, is not without its niche. Its average benchmark score of 8129 actually exceeds the GTX 1650’s 7472, and its 42nd percentile ranking is two points higher. This is because the R9 M360’s scores come exclusively from Geekbench tests, which tend to favor compute throughput, while the GTX 1650’s average is diluted by lower Passmark scores in API-specific tests. For users looking at legacy systems or specific compute workloads that align with GCN architecture strengths, the R9 M360 remains a functional, if dated, option. Its nearest rivals—the GTX 950M, GeForce 945M, GTX 980, and GRID K2—all sit within a deltaPct range of -0.5% to 0.6%, showing that it was well-matched to its 2015 contemporaries.

The verdict is simple: choose the GTX 1650 for any task that demands performance, modern API support, or efficiency. Choose the R9 M360 only if you are constrained to a system that requires it, or if your benchmark suite is limited to Geekbench and you prioritize the higher average score. The data does not support any other conclusion.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29629, while the AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8211, giving the GTX 1650 a 72.3% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two GPUs?

A: The GTX 1650 has a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s, while the R9 M360 has 72.00 GB/s, a difference of approximately 56 GB/s in favor of the GTX 1650.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The R9 M360 has 512 shading units, whereas the GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, nearly double the count.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The GTX 1650 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M360 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The R9 M360 has an average benchmark score of 8129, while the GTX 1650 has an average of 7472, making the R9 M360 slightly higher on this metric.

Q: Does the GTX 1650 have a higher pixel rate than the R9 M360?

A: Yes, the GTX 1650 achieves 53.28 GPixel/s, while the R9 M360 achieves 14.80 GPixel/s.