Radeon 760M vs R9 370

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 370 with Radeon 760M, including specs and performance data.

R9 370
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 110 Watt
12.14

760M outperforms R9 370 by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking415365
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.6667.75
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)
GPU code nameTrinidadHawx Point
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)6 December 2023 (1 year 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 cores1280512
Core clock speed925 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speed975 MHz2599 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate78.0083.17
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS5.323 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs8032
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1400 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/sno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

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.

R9 370 12.14
Radeon 760M 14.64
+20.6%

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.

R9 370 4722
Radeon 760M 5694
+20.6%

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.

R9 370 5249
Radeon 760M 6142
+17%

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 HD45
+36.4%
33
−36.4%
1440p18−20
−33.3%
24
+33.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 39
+0%
39
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 29
+0%
29
+0%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 19
+0%
19
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 17
+0%
17
+0%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+0%
18
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 34
+0%
34
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+0%
36
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+0%
23
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how R9 370 and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:

  • R9 370 is 36% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 760M is 33% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.14 14.64
Recency 5 May 2015 6 December 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 110 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 760M has a 20.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 633.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 370 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 370 is a desktop card while Radeon 760M is a notebook one.

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 R9 370
Radeon R9 370
AMD Radeon 760M
Radeon 760M

Other comparisons

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.


4 427 votes

Rate Radeon R9 370 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 235 votes

Rate Radeon 760M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 370 or Radeon 760M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.