AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison in the database covers two cross-platform tests, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 wins both. The largest margin appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 960 scores 18,925 against the Radeon R9 M360's 8,211. That is a 130.5% advantage, meaning the NVIDIA part delivers more than double the raw compute throughput in this workload. The gap is substantial enough to classify these as different performance tiers rather than close competitors.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a narrower but still clear lead. The GTX 960 posts 9,231 points, while the R9 M360 trails at 8,047. The delta here is 14.7%, which is far from negligible in real-world terms. Vulkan is a lower-level API that tends to expose architectural efficiency, and the data suggests the Maxwell 2.0 design extracts more from the same API than the older GCN 1.0 implementation.

Looking at the aggregate scores, the GTX 960 averages 9,273 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The R9 M360 averages 8,129, sitting in the 42nd percentile. The average score difference, roughly 1,144 points, is consistent with the head-to-head results: the GTX 960 is ahead, but the R9 M360 is not dramatically far behind in overall standing. The percentile gap of 3 points reinforces that both cards occupy the mid-range of the performance distribution, just with the NVIDIA part consistently higher.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The GTX 960's closest competitors by average score are the GeForce GTX 465 (9,294, 0.2% higher), the GeForce GTX 850M (9,302, 0.3% higher), and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9,313, 0.4% higher). The AMD Radeon Vega 8 sits 0.6% lower at 9,221. This clustering shows the GTX 960 is right at a performance plateau where several cards within a fraction of a percent. For the R9 M360, its nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 950M (8,135, 0.1% higher), the GeForce 945M (8,099, 0.4% lower), and the GeForce GTX 980 (8,167, 0.5% higher). The NVIDIA GRID K2 is 0.6% lower at 8,080. The R9 M360 sits in a similar tight cluster, but at a lower absolute level.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip built on Maxwell 2.0, while the R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the node is identical, but the transistor budgets differ considerably. The GTX 960 packs 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The R9 M360 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The GTX 960 is the larger, more complex chip by a wide margin.

The compute resources reflect that difference. The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every category, the NVIDIA part has exactly double the hardware. The clock speeds tell a similar story. The GTX 960 runs at a base of 1127 MHz with a boost of 1178 MHz. The R9 M360 runs at a base of 900 MHz and boosts to 925 MHz. Higher clock speeds on a chip with twice the resources produce a compounded advantage.

The resulting throughput numbers are stark. The GTX 960 achieves 37.70 GPixel/s pixel rate and 75.39 GTexel/s texture rate, with FP32 compute at 2.413 TFLOPS. The R9 M360 manages 14.80 GPixel/s, 29.60 GTexel/s, and 947.2 GFLOPS. That puts the GTX 960 at roughly 2.5 times the pixel throughput, 2.5 times the texture throughput, and 2.5 times the FP32 compute. The architectural efficiency of Maxwell 2.0, combined with the larger chip, creates a consistent multiplicative gap.

The memory subsystems also differ. The GTX 960 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for a bandwidth of 112.2 GB/s. The R9 M360 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), yielding 72.00 GB/s. The GTX 960 has 56% more memory bandwidth despite having half the capacity. The R9 M360 compensates with double the VRAM, which matters for texture-heavy workloads at higher resolutions.

In terms of API support, the GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The feature level difference in DirectX could matter for specific rendering techniques, though both support the modern API generation.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960 wins in every scenario that the recorded data covers. In Geekbench OpenCL, its 130.5% lead indicates a decisive edge in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage the GPU for parallel processing. This includes workloads like video encoding, image processing, and scientific calculations that scale well with shading unit count and memory bandwidth. The GTX 960's 2.413 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, more than double the R9 M360's 947.2 GFLOPS, directly explains this result.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the 14.7% advantage is smaller but still meaningful. Vulkan is a gaming-oriented API, and the gap here suggests the GTX 960 will deliver smoother frame rates in titles that use Vulkan. The higher pixel rate (37.70 vs 14.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (75.39 vs 29.60 GTexel/s) reinforce this, as those metrics translate directly to fill-rate-bound gaming scenarios.

The R9 M360 does have one structural advantage: 4 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB. In games or applications that exceed 2 GB of video memory, the R9 M360 can avoid swapping to system memory, which could mitigate its lower bandwidth in specific situations. However, the recorded benchmarks do not include a test that isolates this advantage, so it remains a theoretical benefit rather than a measured one.

The R9 M360 also has a lower transistor density (12.2 vs 12.9 million per square millimeter), which suggests a slightly more relaxed layout, but this does not translate into any performance benefit in the data.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the R9 M360 uses Tropo with GCN 1.0. The GTX 960 belongs to the GeForce 900 generation; the R9 M360 belongs to the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. Both are 28 nm TSMC parts, but the GTX 960 has 2,940 million transistors versus 1,500 million, and a die size of 228 mm² versus 123 mm².

Clock speeds differ: the GTX 960 runs at 1127 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost, while the R9 M360 runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the GTX 960 versus 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for the R9 M360. Memory capacity goes the other way: 2 GB on the GTX 960 versus 4 GB on the R9 M360. Both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth favors the GTX 960 at 112.2 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s.

The compute units are double on the GTX 960: 1,024 shading units versus 512, 64 TMUs versus 32, and 32 ROPs versus 16. Pixel rate is 37.70 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, texture rate is 75.39 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 2.413 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS. The GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W, requires a 300 W PSU, uses a dual-slot cooler with a single 6-pin connector, and measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length. None of those power or physical specifications are recorded for the R9 M360.

Bus interface is the same: PCIe 3.0 x16. The GTX 960 has display outputs listed as 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the R9 M360 has no display outputs recorded. The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 960 was released on January 21, 2015; the R9 M360 on May 4, 2015. The GTX 960 has a recorded launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the R9 M360 has none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 has an average benchmark score of 9,273, compared to 8,129 for the AMD Radeon R9 M360.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 960 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 960 scores 18,925 versus 8,211 for the R9 M360, which is a 130.5% advantage.

Q: Does the R9 M360 have more video memory?

A: Yes, the R9 M360 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 960 has 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 960 provides 112.2 GB/s, while the R9 M360 provides 72.00 GB/s. The GTX 960 has 56% more bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units, exactly double the 512 shading units on the R9 M360.

Q: What are the percentile rankings of each GPU?

A: The GTX 960 sits in the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M360 sits in the 42nd percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is the stronger GPU in almost every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head tests, has double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, runs at higher clock speeds, delivers more than double the FP32 compute, and provides significantly more memory bandwidth. Its average benchmark score is 14% higher, and it sits 3 percentile points higher in the overall distribution. The only specification where the R9 M360 leads is memory capacity, with 4 GB versus 2 GB, which could help in specific VRAM-limited scenarios, but no recorded benchmark demonstrates that benefit.

The R9 M360's closest rival is the GeForce GTX 950M, which scores 0.1% higher. The GTX 960's closest rival is the GeForce GTX 465, which scores 0.2% higher. This means the GTX 960 competes with a class of GPUs that are roughly 13% faster than the class the R9 M360 competes with. If the choice is between these two specific cards, the GTX 960 is the better pick for anyone prioritizing compute performance, gaming frame rates in Vulkan titles, or memory bandwidth. The R9 M360 is only preferable if the workload absolutely requires more than 2 GB of VRAM, and even then, the performance penalty elsewhere may not justify it.

For users who value raw throughput and modern API support, the GTX 960 is the data-backed choice. For users who need larger frame buffers and can accept lower bandwidth and compute, the R9 M360 has a niche role. The benchmark results do not leave much room for debate: the GTX 960 wins 2 out of 2 direct comparisons and holds a commanding lead in the aggregate.