Radeon R5 (Carrizo) vs GeForce GTS 360M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 360M and Radeon R5 (Carrizo), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 (Carrizo) outperforms GTS 360M by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 952 | 930 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.03 | 3.59 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | Carrizo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 4 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 2410 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 38 Watt | 12-35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2757 TFLOPS | no data |
| Gigaflops | 413 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 32 | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 2000 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Single Link DVILVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPortVGA | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 18
+0%
| 18−20
+0%
|
| Full HD | 23
−4.3%
| 24−27
+4.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2.8%
|
35−40
+2.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−5.9%
|
35−40
+5.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2.8%
|
35−40
+2.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2.8%
|
35−40
+2.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTS 360M and R5 (Carrizo) compete in popular games:
- A tie in 900p
- R5 (Carrizo) is 4% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 (Carrizo) is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Carrizo) is ahead in 27 tests (49%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (51%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.68 | 1.84 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 4 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 38 Watt | 12 Watt |
R5 (Carrizo) has a 9.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 216.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTS 360M and Radeon R5 (Carrizo).
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
