Radeon R7 260 vs R7 360
Aggregated performance score
R7 360 outperforms R7 260 by 7% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 480 | 496 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 1.57 | 1.01 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Tobago | Bonaire |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | reference |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (8 years old) | 17 December 2013 (10 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $109 |
| Current price | $13.98 (0.1x MSRP) | $205 (1.9x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 360 has 55% better value for money than R7 260.
Technical specs
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 cores | 768 | 768 |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 2,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 50.40 | 48.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,613 gflops | 1,536 gflops |
Size and 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 | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 165 mm | 170 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | 1 | no data |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 1625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 104 GB/s |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | 1 | 1 |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | + | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | - |
| CrossFire | 1 | no data |
| Enduro | - | - |
| FreeSync | 1 | 1 |
| HD3D | - | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | - | - |
| VCE | + | no data |
| DDMA audio | + | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | no data |
| Mantle | + | - |
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 outperforms R7 260 by 7% 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 outperforms R7 260 by 7% 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 260 outperforms R7 360 by 7% 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.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 7.98 | 7.46 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 17 December 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 115 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 360 and Radeon R7 260.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
