Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce GTS 360M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 360M and Radeon Vega 7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vega 7 outperforms GTS 360M by a whopping 347% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 957 | 548 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Power efficiency | 3.00 | 11.34 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 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 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 38 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2757 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 413 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 28 |
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 | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 2000 MHz | System Shared |
| 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 outputs |
| 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 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| 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
−344%
| 80−85
+344%
|
| Full HD | 23
+0%
| 23
+0%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−367%
| 28
+367%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−350%
| 18
+350%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18
+500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−833%
|
28
+833%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14
+367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 20 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1160%
|
63
+1160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−363%
|
37
+363%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 24 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−160%
|
24−27
+160%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−108%
|
75−80
+108%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−667%
|
23
+667%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−70.6%
|
58
+70.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−321%
|
80−85
+321%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 18 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
−440%
|
27
+440%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−338%
|
35
+338%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 21 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−130%
|
23
+130%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−217%
|
19
+217%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−103%
|
73
+103%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−321%
|
80−85
+321%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 18 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−238%
|
27
+238%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−160%
|
24−27
+160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−117%
|
13
+117%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+44%
|
25
−44%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−180%
|
14
+180%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−440%
|
50−55
+440%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−160%
|
35−40
+160%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−433%
|
48
+433%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−213%
|
25
+213%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
This is how GTS 360M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 344% faster in 900p
- A tie in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 367% faster in 1440p
- Vega 7 is 350% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 360M is 44% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Vega 7 is 1160% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 360M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Vega 7 is ahead in 41 test (79%)
- there's a draw in 10 tests (19%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.44 | 6.44 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 38 Watt | 45 Watt |
GTS 360M has 18.4% lower power consumption.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 347.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 360M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
