AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and AMD Radeon R9 M360 are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs from the 28 nm era, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The data shows a split decision: the Quadro K1200 takes the lead in OpenCL compute, while the Radeon R9 M360 counters in Vulkan performance. With an average benchmark score of 8,265, the Quadro K1200 sits 1.7% ahead of the R9 M360’s 8,129, placing them at the 43rd and 42nd percentiles of all GPUs respectively. This is a close contest where the winner depends entirely on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available benchmark results paint a clear picture of divergent strengths. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 against the AMD Radeon R9 M360’s 8,211, a decisive 7.6% advantage. This margin is substantial for GPUs in this performance class and reflects the Quadro’s higher raw compute throughput. The K1200’s FP32 performance is rated at 1,057.8 GFLOPS, which is 11.7% higher than the R9 M360’s 947.2 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s outpaces the AMD part’s 29.60 GTexel/s. These hardware specifications align directly with the OpenCL result, indicating that the NVIDIA card’s compute advantage is not a benchmark anomaly but a consistent architectural trait.

However, the situation reverses in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD Radeon R9 M360 wins with a score of 8,047, beating the Quadro K1200’s 7,698 by 4.3%. This is a notable flip given the K1200’s superior raw FP32 numbers. The Vulkan result suggests that the AMD architecture handles the API’s low-level overhead and draw-call distribution more efficiently. The R9 M360 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the Quadro K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4 in its API specifications, yet the older GCN 1.0 design still delivers better real-world Vulkan performance in this comparison. It is importantly the K1200’s OpenCL score of 8,831 is its stronger benchmark, while the R9 M360’s Vulkan score of 8,047 is its stronger result, meaning each card wins on its preferred test.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Quadro K1200’s average score of 8,265 places it just 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8,167) and 1.6% above the GTX 950M (8,135). The R9 M360’s average of 8,129 is only 0.1% behind the GTX 950M and 0.4% ahead of the GeForce 945M (8,099). These deltaPct values confirm that both cards are tightly clustered with mid-range mobile GPUs from the same generation. The Quadro’s 1.7% lead over the R9 M360 in average score is the largest gap between either card and any of its listed rivals, yet it remains a slim margin in absolute terms.

The Verdict

The data supports a workload-dependent recommendation. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute tasks—such as general-purpose GPU computing or applications that leverage this API—the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is the clear choice. Its 7.6% OpenCL advantage over the R9 M360 is backed by higher clock speeds (954 MHz base, 1,033 MHz boost versus 900 MHz base, 925 MHz boost), greater memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s), and superior pixel and texture rates. The K1200 also has a higher transistor density at 12.6M / mm² compared to the R9 M360’s 12.2M / mm², suggesting a more compact and efficient design.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon R9 M360 is the better option for Vulkan-based workloads. Its 4.3% lead in the Vulkan benchmark is significant, and it also offers a higher DirectX support level of 12 (11_1) compared to the Quadro’s 12 (11_0). The R9 M360 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which is a newer bus interface than the Quadro’s PCIe 2.0 x16, potentially offering better data transfer rates in supported systems.

For a neutral database analysis, neither card can be declared an outright winner. The Quadro K1200 wins one benchmark, the R9 M360 wins the other, and the average scores are within 1.7% of each other. The Quadro’s higher avgBenchmarkScore of 8,265 versus 8,129 gives it a nominal edge, but this is offset by the R9 M360’s more recent release date of May 2015 compared to the Quadro’s January 2015. The R9 M360 also has a lower transistor count (1,500 million versus 1,870 million) and a smaller die size (123 mm² versus 148 mm²), indicating a more power-efficient design per transistor, though the TDP is not listed for the AMD part. Ultimately, the choice hinges on the specific API and application requirements of the user.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has an average benchmark score of 8,265, which is 1.7% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M360’s 8,129.

Q: What is the difference in OpenCL performance between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the R9 M360’s 8,211 by 7.6%.

Q: How does the Vulkan performance compare?

A: The R9 M360 scores 8,047 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 4.3% higher than the Quadro K1200’s 7,698.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s, while the R9 M360 has 72.00 GB/s, a difference of 8.19 GB/s in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank against their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K1200 is 1.2% above the GeForce GTX 980 and 1.6% above the GTX 950M, while the R9 M360 is 0.1% below the GTX 950M and 0.4% above the GeForce 945M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields. The Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip with NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, while the R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip with AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture. The Quadro has a transistor count of 1,870 million on a 148 mm² die, whereas the R9 M360 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Clock speeds differ: the Quadro runs at 954 MHz base and 1,033 MHz boost, while the R9 M360 runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Memory is also different, with the Quadro offering 80.19 GB/s bandwidth versus 72.00 GB/s, though both use 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The Quadro has a pixel rate of 16.53 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s, while the R9 M360 has 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,057.8 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 947.2 GFLOPS for the R9 M360. The TDP is listed as 45 W for the Quadro, while no TDP is specified for the R9 M360. The bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R9 M360.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these GPUs represent two distinct design generations. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is built on the Maxwell architecture, which emphasizes power efficiency and higher clock speeds per watt. Its 28 nm process node, manufactured by TSMC, houses 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, matching the R9 M360’s core configuration exactly. However, the Quadro’s transistor density of 12.6M / mm² is slightly higher than the R9 M360’s 12.2M / mm², indicating a more compact layout. The Quadro also features a single-slot design with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W, suggesting a lower power draw despite the unspecified TDP for the AMD part.

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, which was designed for compute-heavy workloads but shows different strengths in API-level performance. It also uses a 28 nm TSMC process but with a simpler 123 mm² die. The R9 M360 supports a newer DirectX version (12_1 versus 12_0) and a more recent PCIe standard (3.0 versus 2.0), which could benefit data transfer in modern systems. The Quadro K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4 support, which is newer than the R9 M360’s Vulkan 1.2.170, yet the AMD card performs better in Vulkan benchmarks. The Quadro’s generation is listed as “Quadro Kepler (Kx200),” which is a hybrid naming, while the R9 M360 belongs to the “Gem System (R9 M300)” generation. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro released on January 27, 2015, and the R9 M360 on May 4, 2015.