Radeon R7 360 vs 860M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 860M with Radeon R7 360, including specs and performance data.
860M outperforms R7 360 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 426 | 533 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 4.07 |
| Power efficiency | 54.65 | 5.57 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Strix Point | Tobago |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | March 2025 (recently) | 18 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 512 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 34,000 million | 2,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 96.00 | 50.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.072 TFLOPS | 1.613 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 165 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1 x 6-pin |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | - | + |
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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 6000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 112 GB/s |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 6 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | + |
| Mantle | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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:
| Full HD | 25
+56.3%
| 16−18
−56.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 6.81 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+52.5%
|
40−45
−52.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+52.5%
|
40−45
−52.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+48.1%
|
27−30
−48.1%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+55.4%
|
65−70
−55.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+52.5%
|
40−45
−52.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+48.2%
|
110−120
−48.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+48.1%
|
27−30
−48.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+55.4%
|
65−70
−55.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+48.1%
|
27−30
−48.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+54.5%
|
55−60
−54.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+52.5%
|
80−85
−52.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
This is how Radeon 860M and R7 360 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 860M is 56% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.98 | 7.46 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 100 Watt |
Radeon 860M has a 47.2% higher aggregate performance score, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 860M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 360 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 860M is a notebook card while Radeon R7 360 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
