AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and AMD Radeon R9 M360 represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics, separated by nearly five years of silicon evolution. The data reveals a fascinating split: the older AMD part wins in OpenCL compute, while the newer NVIDIA part dominates in Vulkan graphics. Each GPU holds one benchmark victory, making this a nuanced comparison rather than a clear-cut winner.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head matchups exactly one win apiece, with the delta percentages telling the full story. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8211 against the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's 7896, giving AMD a 3.8% advantage. This is a modest but meaningful lead in raw compute throughput, suggesting the older GCN architecture still has teeth in general-purpose workloads. The MX330's OpenCL score places it just 21 points behind its rival, a margin that falls well within typical run-to-run variance.

The Vulkan result flips the script decisively. Here, the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 posts 9019 points versus the R9 M360's 8047, a substantial 12.1% gap in NVIDIA's favor. This is the largest delta in either direction, and it highlights how much graphics API efficiency has improved in the newer Pascal design. The MX330's Vulkan score is not just higher—it is 972 points above the AMD part, which is roughly equivalent to the entire performance difference between the two GPUs in the OpenCL test, but in reverse.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all tests, the MX330 aggregates to 8458, while the R9 M360 lands at 8129. That 329-point average gap (roughly 4% in NVIDIA's favor) reflects the Vulkan win outweighing the OpenCL loss in overall magnitude. The nearest rivals for each card reinforce this positioning: the MX330's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8462 (0% delta), while the R9 M360 sits just 6 points below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M at 8135. Both cards occupy a similar performance tier, but the MX330 edges ahead on average.

The percentile rankings tell a comparable story. The MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M360 trails at the 42nd percentile. A single percentile point separates them, yet the benchmark deltas suggest the NVIDIA part has better API-level optimization, particularly for modern graphics workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two is stark. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip built on Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process node. In contrast, the R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm node. This process gap—14 nm versus 28 nm—is the single most important architectural difference, as it directly explains the MX330's efficiency advantages.

Transistor counts and die sizes reveal the density advantage of newer manufacturing. The MX330 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The R9 M360 contains fewer transistors overall (1,500 million) but on a much larger 123 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.2 million per square millimeter. The MX330 literally crams twice the transistors into roughly 60% of the silicon area.

The memory subsystems diverge significantly. The MX330 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth, with memory clocked at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The R9 M360 doubles the capacity to 4 GB on a 128-bit bus, achieving 72.00 GB/s—about 28% more bandwidth—at a lower 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) clock. The R9 M360's wider bus compensates for its slower memory clock, a classic GCN-era design choice.

Compute resources favor AMD in raw counts: the R9 M360 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs versus the MX330's 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs. Yet the MX330's higher clocks—1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost versus 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost—flip the effective throughput. The MX330 achieves 1,224.2 GFLOPS FP32 and 38.26 GTexel/s, while the R9 M360 manages 947.2 GFLOPS and 29.60 GTexel/s. The MX330's pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s also far exceeds the R9 M360's 14.80 GPixel/s, a 72% advantage driven by its much higher clock speed.

The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M360 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both. The MX330's newer API support explains its Vulkan benchmark dominance, as the driver and hardware are better optimized for modern graphics pipelines.

Where Each One Wins

The R9 M360's OpenCL victory points to strengths in compute-heavy workloads that leverage raw shading unit count and memory bandwidth. Its 512 shading units and 72 GB/s bandwidth give it an edge in tasks like OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulations, or data-parallel processing where the wider memory bus can be fed effectively. The 4 GB frame buffer also makes it more suitable for workloads that need larger working sets, though with lower clock speeds, sustained throughput may suffer.

The MX330 wins decisively in Vulkan-based gaming, where its 12.1% lead matters most. Vulkan's low-overhead API design rewards the MX330's higher clock speeds and newer architecture, which can better utilize the reduced CPU overhead. The MX330's 1,594 MHz boost clock versus the R9 M360's 925 MHz represents a 72% clock advantage, which directly translates to higher pixel and texture fill rates. For modern game engines that leverage Vulkan or DirectX 12, the MX330 is clearly the more capable part.

The MX330 also wins on efficiency by a wide margin: its 10 W TDP versus the R9 M360's unspecified (but almost certainly higher) power draw. This makes the MX330 the obvious choice for thin-and-light laptops where thermals and battery life are paramount. The R9 M360, with its older 28 nm process, would generate significantly more heat for comparable performance, making it better suited to larger chassis with active cooling.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 averages 8458 across benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon R9 M360 averages 8129—a difference of 329 points in NVIDIA's favor.

Q: How much faster is the MX330 in Vulkan?

A: The MX330 scores 9019 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the R9 M360's 8047, giving NVIDIA a 12.1% advantage in that specific test.

Q: Does the R9 M360 ever beat the MX330?

A: Yes, in Geekbench OpenCL, the R9 M360 scores 8211 against the MX330's 7896, a 3.8% lead for AMD.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The R9 M360 provides 72.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the MX330 offers 56.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus—AMD has roughly 28% more bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M360 has 512 shading units, compared to the MX330's 384, though the MX330 compensates with significantly higher clock speeds.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The MX330 is built on a 14 nm Samsung process, while the R9 M360 uses a 28 nm TSMC process. This explains the MX330's smaller die (74 mm² versus 123 mm²) and higher transistor density.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. For Vulkan-based gaming and modern graphics APIs, the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is the superior choice—its 12.1% Vulkan lead and higher average score of 8458 make it the better all-around performer. Its 10 W TDP and compact IGP form factor also make it the only viable option for ultraportable systems.

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 appeals specifically to scenarios where OpenCL compute performance and memory capacity matter more than graphics API efficiency. Its 3.8% OpenCL win and double the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB) could benefit certain compute tasks or older games that favor raw shading unit counts. However, its 72% lower clock speed and older architecture make it a harder recommendation for modern workloads.

The percentile gap—43rd versus 42nd—suggests these are closely matched in the broader GPU landscape. Yet the benchmark deltas are lopsided: NVIDIA wins big where it wins (12.1% in Vulkan), while AMD's OpenCL margin is modest (3.8%). For most users running a mix of workloads, the MX330's average score advantage and efficiency profile make it the safer pick. The R9 M360 is a specialist tool, best reserved for systems prioritizing compute throughput over graphics versatility.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 | AMD Radeon R9 M360 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1531 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1594 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.26 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,224.2 GFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 10 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| OpenCL Benchmark | 7896 | 8211 |

| Vulkan Benchmark | 9019 | 8047 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 8458 | 8129 |

| Percentile | 43 | 42 |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2015-05-04 |