AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner between these two mobile GPUs. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M takes both victories, leaving the AMD Radeon R9 M360 without a single head-to-head win. The margin is substantial in each case.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 points against 8,211 for the AMD Radeon R9 M360. That translates to a 22.5% advantage for the Quadro. This is a decisive gap, not a marginal one. It suggests that in compute workloads that scale well with shading units and clock speed, the NVIDIA part has a meaningful edge.

The Vulkan result is closer, but still favors NVIDIA. The Quadro M2000M posts 9,606 points, while the Radeon R9 M360 manages 8,047. The 19.4% delta is smaller than the OpenCL gap, but it remains a comfortable margin. Vulkan performance tends to reward driver efficiency and architecture maturity, and the data indicates the Maxwell-based Quadro holds the advantage there as well.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro M2000M's average benchmark score is 9,832, which places it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Radeon R9 M360 averages 8,129, sitting at the 42nd percentile. The difference in average score is 1,703 points, which aligns with the head-to-head results.

The nearest rival comparisons put these numbers in perspective. The Quadro M2000M's average score of 9,832 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, which averages 9,846, a delta of only 0.1%. It is 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000, which scores 9,803. It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, which averages 9,780, by 0.5%, and the NVIDIA Tesla M10, which averages 9,724, by 1.1%.

The Radeon R9 M360's average of 8,129 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, which scores 8,135, a delta of 0.1% in favor of the GTX 950M. It is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 945M, which averages 8,099. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, which averages 8,167, by 0.5%. It also beats the NVIDIA GRID K2, which averages 8,080, by 0.6%.

These rival clusters show that the two cards operate in different performance tiers. The Quadro M2000M sits alongside the Quadro 6000 and GeForce GTX 1070 in average score, while the Radeon R9 M360 competes with the GeForce GTX 950M and GeForce 945M. The 22.5% OpenCL delta and 19.4% Vulkan delta between the two cards reflect this tier separation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins with a score of 10,057 against 8,211 for the AMD Radeon R9 M360, a 22.5% advantage.

Q: How large is the gap in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro M2000M scores 9,606 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon R9 M360 scores 8,047. The Quadro leads by 19.4%.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for both cards?

A: The Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, and the Radeon R9 M360 has an average of 8,129.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro M2000M is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000. The Radeon R9 M360 is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 945M.

Q: Which card has the higher percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro M2000M sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R9 M360 sits at the 42nd percentile.

Q: Did the AMD Radeon R9 M360 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The database records two wins for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and zero wins for the AMD Radeon R9 M360.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, belonging to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation. The AMD Radeon R9 M360 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, belonging to the Gem System R9 M300 generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node, so the manufacturing process is identical, but the underlying designs diverge significantly.

The transistor counts differ. The Quadro M2000M packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The Radeon R9 M360 contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, producing a density of 12.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is larger in both absolute transistor count and die area, and it also achieves a slightly higher transistor density.

The compute resources differ as well. The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The Radeon R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The NVIDIA part fields 128 more shading units and 8 more TMUs, while both cards share the same 16 ROP count.

Feature support also splits along vendor lines. The Quadro M2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards match on OpenGL, but the Radeon has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, while the Quadro has a newer Vulkan version. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The bus interface differs. The Quadro M2000M uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface, which is typical for mobile workstation modules. The Radeon R9 M360 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, a standard PCI Express slot interface. The Quadro's form factor is listed as an MXM module, while the Radeon's slot width is not recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds show meaningful differences between the two cards. The Quadro M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz. The Radeon R9 M360 has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz. The NVIDIA card runs roughly 200 MHz higher at both clock states, which contributes to its performance advantage.

Memory clocks also differ. The Quadro M2000M has a memory clock of 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, while the Radeon R9 M360 runs at 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, but the higher memory clock gives the Quadro a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s against 72.00 GB/s for the Radeon, a difference of 8.19 GB/s.

The compute throughput numbers reflect the combined effects of clock speed and shading unit count. The Quadro M2000M delivers 1,455.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Radeon R9 M360 delivers 947.2 GFLOPS. The pixel rate is 18.19 GPixel/s for the Quadro and 14.80 GPixel/s for the Radeon. The texture rate is 45.48 GTexel/s for the Quadro and 29.60 GTexel/s for the Radeon. In every measured throughput category, the NVIDIA part holds a clear lead.

Power and physical specifications differ in availability. The Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the Radeon R9 M360 has no TDP recorded. The Quadro uses no power connectors and is listed as an MXM Module. The Radeon's power connectors and slot width are not recorded. The Quadro's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the Radeon's display outputs are not recorded.

Release dates differ as well. The AMD Radeon R9 M360 was released on 2015-05-04, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M was released on 2015-12-02. Both are marked as end-of-life. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M. The Radeon's predecessor is the Solar System generation and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a single conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is the stronger GPU in this comparison. It wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 1,703 point lead in average benchmark score, and occupies a higher percentile at 47 versus 42. The architecture supports this outcome with more shading units, higher clocks, and higher memory bandwidth.

The Quadro M2000M's nearest rival cluster includes the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, both of which score within 0.5% of its average. That places the Quadro in a performance tier that the Radeon R9 M360 does not approach. The Radeon's nearest rivals, the GeForce GTX 950M and GeForce 945M, score roughly 1,700 points lower, which matches the head-to-head delta between the two cards.

The 22.5% OpenCL margin and 19.4% Vulkan margin are consistent across both API tests, so the result is not an artifact of a single workload. The Quadro leads in every compute and throughput metric recorded: FP32, pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. The Radeon's only recorded advantages are a slightly higher DirectX feature level and a smaller die size, neither of which appears in the benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins in compute-heavy workloads. Its 22.5% OpenCL advantage and 19.4% Vulkan advantage indicate that any application using these APIs will favor the NVIDIA card. The higher FP32 throughput of 1,455.4 GFLOPS against 947.2 GFLOPS reinforces this pattern. The Quadro also wins on memory bandwidth at 80.19 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s, which benefits bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 does not win any recorded benchmark, but the data does show areas where it is not far behind. Its Vulkan score of 8,047 is closer to the Quadro's 9,606 than its OpenCL score is, suggesting the gap narrows somewhat in Vulkan workloads. The Radeon also matches the Quadro on ROP count at 16, so pixel output capability per clock is equal in theory, though the Quadro's higher clocks still give it the overall pixel rate lead.

The Radeon's smaller die area of 123 mm² against 148 mm² could be relevant in systems where physical space is constrained, and its lower transistor count of 1,500 million against 1,870 million may have implications for thermal characteristics, though TDP is not recorded for the Radeon. The Radeon also carries a higher DirectX feature level of 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0) for the Quadro, which is a minor compatibility advantage for certain titles.

For practical selection, the data supports choosing the Quadro M2000M for any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute. The Radeon R9 M360 remains an option where the system uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and where the Quadro's MXM-A (3.0) form factor is not compatible, but the performance trade-off is substantial. The recorded benchmarks leave no ambiguity about which card delivers higher performance.