GeForce GT 755M vs Radeon R7 360

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

R7 360
2015
2048 MB GDDR5
7.99
+83.3%

Radeon R7 360 outperforms GeForce GT 755M by an impressive 83% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking482630
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.570.86
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTobagoN14P-
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (8 years ago)25 June 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 no data
Current price$13.98 (0.1x MSRP)$310

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 360 has 83% better value for money than GT 755M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores768384
Core clock speedno data980 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,080 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate50.4031.36
Floating-point performance1,613 gflops752.6 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R7 360 and GeForce GT 755M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length165 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno data
SLI-readyno data-
Bridgeless CrossFire1no 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed6000 MHz5400 MHz
Memory bandwidth112 GB/s86.4 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity1no data
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI++
HDCP content protectionno data+
DisplayPort support+no data
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMIno data+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreamingno data+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration-no data
CrossFire1no data
Enduro-no data
FreeSync1no data
HD3D-no data
PowerTune+no data
TrueAudio+no data
ZeroCore-no data
VCE+no data
DDMA audio+no data
Blu-Ray 3D Supportno data+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoderno data+
Optimusno data+
3D Vision / 3DTV Playno data+

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 API
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+1.1.126
Mantle+no data
CUDAno data+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R7 360 7.99
+83.3%
GT 755M 4.36

Radeon R7 360 outperforms GeForce GT 755M by 83% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

R7 360 3092
+83.3%
GT 755M 1687

Radeon R7 360 outperforms GeForce GT 755M by 83% in Passmark.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R7 360 4110
+95.2%
GT 755M 2106

Radeon R7 360 outperforms GeForce GT 755M by 95% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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:

900p100−110
+78.6%
56
−78.6%
Full HD40−45
+81.8%
22
−81.8%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.99 4.36
Recency 18 June 2015 25 June 2013
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 50 Watt

The Radeon R7 360 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 360 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 755M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 360
Radeon R7 360
NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
GeForce GT 755M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 578 votes

Rate Radeon R7 360 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 69 votes

Rate GeForce GT 755M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.