AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two mobile graphics solutions in this comparison come from opposite ends of the performance spectrum, and the recorded data makes that clear immediately. In the OpenCL workload, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M posts a score of 11,045 against the AMD Radeon R9 M360's 8,211, a decisive 34.5% advantage for the NVIDIA part. This is not a marginal gap; it is a commanding lead that will translate into substantial real-world differences in compute-heavy tasks, from video encoding to physics simulations.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a closer but still NVIDIA-favorable story. Here, the GTX 960M scores 8,245 while the Radeon R9 M360 trails at 8,047, a narrower 2.5% margin. This suggests that in modern graphics API workloads, the two parts are far more evenly matched than the OpenCL results would imply. The percentage swing between the two tests is noteworthy: a 34.5% lead in one API shrinks to a 2.5% lead in another, indicating that the AMD part's architecture handles Vulkan's lower-level overhead comparatively well.

Across the two head-to-head benchmarks, the GeForce GTX 960M wins both, giving it a clean sweep with 2 wins and 0 losses. The average benchmark score for the NVIDIA card is 9,645, which places it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Radeon R9 M360 averages 8,129, sitting in the 42nd percentile. That 4-percentile-point spread underscores the overall positioning gap, but the Vulkan result shows the AMD card is not without merit in specific scenarios.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The GTX 960M's average score of 9,645 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9,637 (0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 (-0.1% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (-0.2% delta). It sits slightly behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 at 9,716 (-0.7% delta). The Radeon R9 M360's average of 8,129 places it alongside the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M at 8,135 (-0.1% delta), ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 945M at 8,099 (0.4% delta), behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 at 8,167 (-0.5% delta), and essentially tied with the NVIDIA GRID K2 at 8,080 (0.6% delta). The data clearly shows the GTX 960M operating in a higher performance tier entirely.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial and explains much of the performance gap. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is built on the GM107 chip, utilizing the Maxwell architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,870 million transistors packed into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R9 M360, in contrast, uses the Tropo chip with the older GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. It also uses TSMC's 28 nm process but packs fewer transistors: 1,500 million on a smaller 123 mm² die, giving a slightly lower density of 12.2 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds favor the NVIDIA part significantly. The GTX 960M runs at a base clock of 1,097 MHz with a boost up to 1,176 MHz. The Radeon R9 M360 operates at a more modest 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the NVIDIA card runs its GDDR5 at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the AMD card uses 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, but the higher clock speed gives the GTX 960M a memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s for the Radeon.

The compute resources tell a similar story. The GTX 960M is equipped with 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These differences compound into the fill rate and compute figures: the NVIDIA card achieves 18.82 GPixel/s pixel rate and 47.04 GTexel/s texture rate, while the AMD card manages 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s respectively. Floating-point performance stands at 1.505 TFLOPS for the GTX 960M versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the R9 M360.

Power and interface specifications also diverge. The GTX 960M carries a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, requiring no external power connectors. The Radeon R9 M360 has no recorded TDP or slot width, but uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Both cards support DirectX 12, with the NVIDIA part at version 12 (11_0) and the AMD part at 12 (11_1), both support OpenGL 4.6, and both support Vulkan, though at different versions: 1.4 for NVIDIA and 1.2.170 for AMD. Both are end-of-life products, released in 2015, with the GTX 960M arriving in March and the R9 M360 in May.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 960M is the clear winner in compute-heavy and throughput-intensive scenarios. Its 34.5% OpenCL advantage over the Radeon R9 M360 indicates that applications leveraging OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, such as video rendering, data processing, or scientific simulations, will see dramatically better performance on the NVIDIA part. The higher texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s also suggests an edge in games that are texture-fill-rate-bound, which includes many modern titles at high resolutions with detailed assets.

The Radeon R9 M360 does not win any of the recorded benchmarks outright, but its relatively strong Vulkan showing, only 2.5% behind the GTX 960M despite being 34.5% behind in OpenCL, hints that it may hold its own better in Vulkan-native titles or applications. This could be relevant for users running newer games that prioritize Vulkan as their rendering API, where the gap narrows considerably. Additionally, the R9 M360's standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface might offer easier integration into certain laptop designs compared to the MXM module requirement of the NVIDIA card.

For gaming purposes, the GTX 960M's higher shading unit count (640 vs 512), faster clocks, and greater memory bandwidth collectively point to superiority across most DirectX titles. The 2.5% Vulkan delta, while close, still favors NVIDIA. The data does not support any scenario where the Radeon part emerges as the overall winner; instead, its potential niche lies in Vulkan-specific workloads where the performance penalty is minimal.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is the superior GPU in this comparison. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a 46th percentile ranking versus the Radeon's 42nd, and delivers an average benchmark score of 9,645 against 8,129. The 34.5% OpenCL lead is the dominant headline, representing a massive advantage in compute workloads. Even in Vulkan, where the gap narrows to 2.5%, the NVIDIA card still takes the win.

Users seeking maximum performance for gaming, content creation, or compute applications should select the GeForce GTX 960M without hesitation. Its higher transistor count, faster clocks, more shading units, and greater memory bandwidth all align with the benchmark data to make it the obvious choice. The Radeon R9 M360, while not without merit in Vulkan scenarios, cannot match the overall capability of the NVIDIA part. For users who primarily run Vulkan-based applications and prioritize that API specifically, the R9 M360 could be a consideration, but the data shows even there it falls short.

The GTX 960M's nearest rivals, including the Quadro K5000 and Radeon Pro WX 2100, all sit within 0.2% of its performance, indicating it sits in a well-populated mid-range tier. The R9 M360's rivals, like the GTX 950M and GeForce 945M, are all in the 8,100 range, a full tier below. This positioning reinforces the verdict: the GTX 960M is the higher-performing part, and the R9 M360 is a budget-oriented alternative that trades significant compute capability for a narrower set of advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M averages 9,645, while the AMD Radeon R9 M360 averages 8,129, a difference of roughly 1,516 points.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 960M leads by 34.5% in the geekbench_opencl test, scoring 11,045 versus 8,211 for the R9 M360.

Q: Does the Radeon R9 M360 win any benchmark?

A: No, the R9 M360 loses both head-to-head tests. It trails by 34.5% in OpenCL and by 2.5% in Vulkan.

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

A: The GTX 960M has 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M360 has 72.00 GB/s, both using 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 960M has 640 shading units, compared to 512 for the R9 M360.

Q: How do the Vulkan scores compare?

A: The GTX 960M scores 8,245 in geekbench_vulkan, only 2.5% ahead of the R9 M360's 8,047, making this the closest benchmark between the two.