AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R9 M360 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 in compute performance?

A: The GTX 970 delivers substantially higher compute throughput. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970 scores 29,982 versus 8,211 for the R9 M360, a 72.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 970 scores 20,005 versus 8,047, which is 59.8% ahead.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The R9 M360 has a higher average benchmark score of 8,129 compared to the GTX 970's 7,157. However, this average is derived from only two tests for the R9 M360, while the GTX 970 has eleven recorded benchmarks, including several DirectX and Passmark tests that pull its average down.

Q: What architectures do these two cards use?

A: The R9 M360 is built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, while the GTX 970 uses NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the memory subsystems differ significantly. The R9 M360 uses a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 970 uses a 256-bit bus with 224.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the release timing for each card?

A: The GTX 970 was released on September 18, 2014, while the R9 M360 came later on May 4, 2015. Both are now end-of-life products.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The R9 M360 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, which was already an older design by the time this card launched in 2015. The GTX 970, by contrast, uses NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, a newer and more efficient design that introduced significant improvements in geometry processing and power efficiency.

The chip sizes tell the story clearly. The R9 M360's Tropo chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The GTX 970's GM204 chip packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. That is roughly 3.5 times more transistors on a die that is about 3.2 times larger. Transistor density is similar, with the GTX 970 at 13.1M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm² for the R9 M360.

The compute resources differ by an even wider margin. The R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 970 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 56 ROPs. That is more than three times the shader count, more than three times the texture units, and more than three times the ROPs. These are not incremental differences; they represent entirely different performance classes.

Clock speeds also favor the GTX 970. The R9 M360 runs at a 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost, while the GTX 970 runs at 1050 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost. Combined with the larger shader count, the GTX 970's peak FP32 throughput reaches 3.920 TFLOPS, more than four times the R9 M360's 947.2 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. Both cards use 4 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 970's 256-bit memory bus provides 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth, over three times the R9 M360's 72.00 GB/s from its 128-bit bus. The GTX 970 also runs its memory at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the R9 M360 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

The GTX 970 is a dual-slot card requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 300 W suggested PSU, with a TDP of 148 W. The R9 M360 has no recorded TDP, slot width, or power connector information, consistent with its mobile-oriented positioning. The GTX 970 measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, and offers display outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The R9 M360 has no recorded display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison in the database covers two compute-oriented tests, and the GTX 970 wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970 scores 29,982 against the R9 M360's 8,211. The delta is 72.6% in favor of the GTX 970. This test measures raw compute throughput across a variety of workloads, and the result reflects the GTX 970's 1,664 shading units operating at higher clocks. The R9 M360's 512 shading units at 925 MHz boost simply cannot compete in this metric.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows somewhat but remains large. The GTX 970 scores 20,005 against the R9 M360's 8,047, a 59.8% advantage. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose inefficiencies in older architectures, and the GCN 1.0 design in the R9 M360 appears to handle it less effectively than Maxwell 2.0.

The R9 M360 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks. The GTX 970 wins both recorded tests. There is no test in the database where the R9 M360 comes out ahead.

It is worth remembering the average benchmark scores tell a different story at first glance. The R9 M360's average score is 8,129, while the GTX 970's is 7,157. This is because the GTX 970 has a much broader benchmark suite, including Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests, plus Passmark G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests. Several of these scores are low relative to the GTX 970's compute performance, dragging its average down. The R9 M360 only has two Geekbench results, both in the 8,000 range, so its average is pulled from a much smaller sample.

The percentile rankings reflect this as well. The R9 M360 sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 970 sits at the 39th percentile. This ranking is based on average benchmark scores across the full database, not just the head-to-head tests. A reader looking only at percentiles might assume these GPUs are comparable, but the head-to-head results show a massive performance gap in compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear separation between these two cards across nearly every field.

Architecture and Chip: The R9 M360 uses GCN 1.0 with the Tropo chip, while the GTX 970 uses Maxwell 2.0 with the GM204 chip. Both are 28 nm parts from TSMC.

Transistors and Die Size: The R9 M360 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The GTX 970 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die.

Clock Speeds: The R9 M360 runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The GTX 970 runs at 1050 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for the R9 M360 and 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the GTX 970.

Memory: Both have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the R9 M360 uses a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 970 uses a 256-bit bus with 224.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute Units: The R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 970 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 56 ROPs.

Fill Rates: The R9 M360 achieves 14.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 29.60 GTexel/s texture rate. The GTX 970 achieves 65.97 GPixel/s and 122.5 GTexel/s.

FP32 Performance: The R9 M360 delivers 947.2 GFLOPS. The GTX 970 delivers 3.920 TFLOPS.

Power and Physical: The GTX 970 has a recorded TDP of 148 W, is dual-slot, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W. The R9 M360 has no recorded values for any of these fields. The GTX 970 measures 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm. The R9 M360 has no recorded dimensions.

API Support: The R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Release Dates: The R9 M360 was released May 4, 2015. The GTX 970 was released September 18, 2014.

Predecessors and Successors: The R9 M360's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The GTX 970's predecessor is GeForce 700 and its successor is GeForce 10.

Launch MSRP: The GTX 970 had a launch MSRP of 329 USD. The R9 M360 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970 wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, and the margins are not close. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 72.6% ahead of the R9 M360. In Geekbench Vulkan, it is 59.8% ahead. If the workload involves compute acceleration, OpenCL, or Vulkan, the GTX 970 is the clear choice.

The GTX 970's advantages extend beyond compute. Its 224.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 72.00 GB/s makes it substantially better suited for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions. Its 122.5 GTexel/s texture rate versus 29.60 GTexel/s means it can feed those textures much faster. Its 65.97 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 14.80 GPixel/s gives it a major edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The R9 M360's recorded wins are limited to the average benchmark score comparison and the percentile ranking. Its average score of 8,129 is 13.6% higher than the GTX 970's 7,157, and it sits at the 42nd percentile versus the GTX 970's 39th. This is a statistical artifact of the GTX 970's larger benchmark suite, which includes several older DirectX tests with lower scores. The R9 M360 only has Geekbench results in its database entry.

For practical use cases, the R9 M360 is a mobile-oriented part with no recorded TDP, dimensions, or power connector requirements. The GTX 970 is a desktop card with clear physical specifications, a dual-slot cooler, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The GTX 970's display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2) also make it more suitable for multi-monitor setups, while the R9 M360 has no recorded display outputs.

The R9 M360's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, which scores 8,135 (0.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce 945M at 8,099 (0.4% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 at 8,167 (0.5% higher), and the NVIDIA GRID K2 at 8,080 (0.6% lower). These are all close scores, indicating the R9 M360 sits in a narrow performance band among mobile and older desktop parts. Its performance class is far below the GTX 970, which has nearest rivals like the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE, AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, all within about 1% of its average score.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 is the faster GPU by a wide margin in every recorded head-to-head test. Its 72.6% OpenCL advantage and 59.8% Vulkan advantage over the R9 M360 place it in a different performance tier entirely. The GTX 970's larger shader count, higher clocks, wider memory bus, and greater fill rates all support this conclusion.

The R9 M360's only statistical advantages are its higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking, both of which stem from the limited number of tests recorded for that card. With only two Geekbench results in its database entry, its average score of 8,129 does not reflect the broad performance picture that the GTX 970's eleven benchmarks provide.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision depends on context. If the GPU is going into a desktop system where power draw and physical size are not constraints, the GTX 970 is the obvious pick. It offers over four times the FP32 throughput, over three times the memory bandwidth, and more than three times the shading units. It supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, and it has a full suite of display outputs for multi-monitor use.

The R9 M360 makes sense only in scenarios where the GTX 970's desktop-oriented physical footprint is not an option. Its end-of-life status applies to both cards, but the R9 M360's mobile orientation and lack of recorded power or physical specifications suggest it was designed for integrated or laptop deployments. In that context, its 42nd percentile ranking places it among capable mobile parts like the GTX 950M and GTX 980, but it does not approach the performance level of the GTX 970.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward. For compute workloads, the GTX 970 is the superior choice by a large margin. The R9 M360 should only be considered when the GTX 970's desktop form factor and 148 W TDP are not viable. The GTX 970 launched at 329 USD, a price point that reflected its position as a high-performance desktop card, while the R9 M360 has no recorded launch MSRP.