AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains two benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon R9 M360 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, and the results are lopsided. The GTX 750 wins both tests, but the margin tells very different stories depending on the workload.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 scores 9315 against the R9 M360's 8211. That is an 11.9% deficit for the AMD part, a substantial gap in raw compute throughput. The R9 M360's FP32 rating of 947.2 GFLOPS versus the GTX 750's 1,111.0 GFLOPS lines up with this result: NVIDIA's desktop card simply has more shader horsepower available, and the OpenCL test reflects it.

The Vulkan test is far closer. The GTX 750 scores 8078, while the R9 M360 posts 8047, a difference of only 0.4%. That is effectively a tie in driver-level API performance. Both cards land within a rounding error of each other, which suggests that when the workload is Vulkan-bound, the architectural differences between GCN 1.0 and Maxwell do not translate into a meaningful performance gap. The R9 M360's Vulkan support is listed as 1.2.170, while the GTX 750 supports Vulkan 1.4, but the benchmark numbers indicate that API version headroom does not automatically produce faster execution.

The aggregate benchmark average tells a more nuanced story. The R9 M360 has an average benchmark score of 8129, while the GTX 750 sits at 7222. That discrepancy exists because the GTX 750's benchmark list includes a Geekbench Metal score of 4274, which drags its average down significantly. The R9 M360 has no Metal result recorded. If you isolate the overlapping tests, the GTX 750 leads in both, but its overall average is lower due to that Metal result. This is a case where the summary statistic obscures the direct comparison.

Looking at percentile placement, the R9 M360 ranks in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 750 sits in the 40th percentile. Both are mid-pack performers, and the percentile difference is small enough to be noise. The R9 M360's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 950M at 8135 (a 0.1% difference), the GeForce 945M at 8099 (0.4% ahead), the GeForce GTX 980 at 8167 (0.5% behind), and the GRID K2 at 8080 (0.6% ahead). The GTX 750's nearest rivals include the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7203 (0.3% ahead), the GTX 560 SE at 7171 (0.7% ahead), the Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7170 (0.7% ahead), and the GTX 970 at 7157 (0.9% ahead). The R9 M360 clusters with mid-range mobile parts, while the GTX 750 clusters with older desktop and integrated solutions.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 wins decisively, scoring 9315 against the R9 M360's 8211, a margin of 11.9%. The GTX 750's higher FP32 throughput of 1,111.0 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS supports this result.

Q: Is the R9 M360 competitive in Vulkan?

A: Yes, nearly so. The R9 M360 scores 8047 in Geekbench Vulkan against the GTX 750's 8078, a gap of only 0.4%. For practical purposes, Vulkan performance is indistinguishable between these two cards.

Q: Why does the GTX 750 have a lower average benchmark score despite winning both head-to-head tests?

A: The GTX 750's average of 7222 includes a Geekbench Metal score of 4274, which significantly lowers its mean. The R9 M360 has no Metal result recorded, so its average of 8129 is based only on OpenCL and Vulkan scores, where it performs closer to the GTX 750.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R9 M360 sits within 0.6% of four rivals: the GTX 950M, GeForce 945M, GTX 980, and GRID K2. The GTX 750 sits within 0.9% of four rivals: the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, GTX 560 SE, Iris Pro Graphics P580, and GTX 970. Both cards are tightly clustered with their peers.

Q: What is the GTX 750's launch MSRP?

A: The GTX 750 had a launch MSRP of 119 USD. The R9 M360 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 750 has a pixel rate of 17.36 GPixel/s, while the R9 M360 achieves 14.80 GPixel/s. The GTX 750 also leads in texture rate at 34.72 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most use cases: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, and in OpenCL the margin is substantial at 11.9%. The Vulkan result is effectively a tie, but a tie still goes to the card that wins elsewhere. If you need compute performance in OpenCL, the GTX 750 is the better choice by a wide margin.

The R9 M360 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 8129 is higher than the GTX 750's 7222, but that is an artifact of the GTX 750's additional Metal benchmark. In the tests where both cards appear, the GTX 750 leads. The R9 M360's Vulkan showing is close enough that in Vulkan-only workloads, the choice would not matter.

For a desktop builder, the GTX 750 is the obvious pick. It has a 55 W TDP, no power connectors required, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The R9 M360 has no TDP listed, so power behavior is unknown. The GTX 750 also has a higher memory bandwidth at 80.19 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s, and it comes with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI outputs.

The R9 M360's only real advantage is memory capacity: 4 GB versus the GTX 750's 1024 MB. For modern workloads that exceed 1 GB of VRAM, that could matter, but the GTX 750's higher throughput in both recorded tests suggests the extra memory is not compensating for slower execution.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several core specifications. The R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip under GCN 1.0 architecture, while the GTX 750 uses GM107 under Maxwell. Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ: the R9 M360 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the GTX 750 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.2M per mm² for AMD and 12.6M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds favor the GTX 750. The R9 M360 runs at a 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost, while the GTX 750 runs at 1020 MHz base and 1085 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the R9 M360 uses 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective, while the GTX 750 uses 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity is the biggest specification gap. The R9 M360 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 750 has 1024 MB. Both use a 128 bit bus, but the GTX 750's higher memory clock gives it 80.19 GB/s bandwidth versus 72.00 GB/s for the R9 M360.

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are identical: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on both cards. The GTX 750 still wins in pixel rate at 17.36 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 34.72 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s, due to its higher clocks.

DirectX support differs slightly. The R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan versions differ: the R9 M360 supports 1.2.170, and the GTX 750 supports 1.4.

The GTX 750 has a 55 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. It measures 145 mm or 5.7 inches in length. The R9 M360 has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or dimension data recorded. The GTX 750's display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a; the R9 M360 has no display output data.

Architecture Differences

The R9 M360 is built on GCN 1.0, AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next architecture. The GTX 750 uses NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, a second-generation rework of the Kepler design. Both are 28 nm parts from TSMC, but the transistor budgets differ: AMD packs 1,500 million transistors into 123 mm², while NVIDIA fits 1,870 million into 148 mm².

The GCN 1.0 design in the R9 M360 is older, dating to AMD's initial compute-focused GPU architecture. Maxwell, by contrast, was designed for improved efficiency and higher clocks per watt. The GTX 750's 55 W TDP and 1020 MHz base clock reflect that efficiency. The R9 M360 has no TDP recorded, so direct power comparison is impossible, but its lower clocks suggest a more conservative power envelope.

Shader configuration is identical on paper: both cards have 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 750 reaches higher throughput because of its clock advantage. Maxwell's scheduler and cache hierarchy are different from GCN 1.0, which likely explains the 11.9% OpenCL gap despite identical shader counts.

Memory architecture differs in capacity but not bus width. Both use a 128 bit GDDR5 interface, but the GTX 750's faster memory clock yields higher bandwidth. The R9 M360's 4 GB capacity is double the GTX 750's 1 GB, but the GTX 750's bandwidth advantage of 80.19 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s means it can feed its shaders faster.

API support shows the generational gap. The R9 M360 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 750 supports Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 750 also has a Metal benchmark score, while the R9 M360 does not. DirectX support is nearly identical, with the R9 M360 at 12 (11_1) and the GTX 750 at 12 (11_0).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 wins in OpenCL compute. Its 11.9% lead over the R9 M360 in Geekbench OpenCL is the largest margin in the recorded data. This makes it the better choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL acceleration, from rendering to physics simulation. Its higher FP32 throughput of 1,111.0 GFLOPS and higher memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s support this advantage.

The GTX 750 also wins in Vulkan, but the margin is negligible at 0.4%. For Vulkan-based gaming or compute, the choice between these two cards would not produce a noticeable difference. The GTX 750's Vulkan 1.4 support is a newer API revision, but the benchmark score does not reflect a practical advantage.

The R9 M360's win condition is memory capacity. At 4 GB versus the GTX 750's 1024 MB, the AMD card can hold larger textures and datasets. In scenarios where VRAM capacity is the bottleneck, such as high-resolution texture packs or larger compute buffers, the R9 M360 has headroom that the GTX 750 lacks. This is a speculative advantage, however, since the recorded benchmarks do not test VRAM-limited workloads.

The GTX 750 also wins on practical desktop integration. Its 55 W TDP, single-slot design, no power connectors, and 250 W suggested PSU make it easy to install in almost any system. The R9 M360 has no such data recorded, so its power and physical requirements are unknown.

For a builder choosing between these two, the GTX 750 is the safer recommendation. It wins both direct comparisons, has a lower power footprint, and its 119 USD launch MSRP gives it a clear price reference. The R9 M360 is only preferable if the 4 GB memory capacity is a hard requirement, and even then, its slower throughput in both recorded tests suggests it would struggle to use that capacity effectively.