Radeon R7 360 vs Arc A350M

Place in the ranking	360	516
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	4.33
Power efficiency	40.09	5.60
Architecture	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code name	DG2-128	Tobago
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$109

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	768	768
Core clock speed	300 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	2,080 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.20	50.40
Floating-point processing power	1.766 TFLOPS	1.613 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	16
TMUs	48	48
Ray Tracing Cores	6	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	no data	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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	6000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	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	No outputs	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 compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.6	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	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. 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.

Arc A350M 14.56
+79.1%

R7 360 8.13

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.

Arc A350M 7147
+73.9%

R7 360 4110

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	35 +94.4%	18−20 −94.4%
1440p	16 +100%	8−9 −100%
4K	9 +80%	5−6 −80%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	6.06
1440p	no data	13.63
4K	no data	21.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +85.7%	14−16 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 +92.9%	14−16 −92.9%
Elden Ring	22 +83.3%	12−14 −83.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +100%	24−27 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +85.7%	14−16 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +80%	5−6 −80%
Forza Horizon 4	66 +88.6%	35−40 −88.6%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +90.5%	21−24 −90.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +100%	18−20 −100%
Valorant	56 +86.7%	30−33 −86.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +100%	24−27 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +85.7%	14−16 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	8 +100%	4−5 −100%
Dota 2	38 +81%	21−24 −81%
Elden Ring	42 +100%	21−24 −100%
Far Cry 5	27 +92.9%	14−16 −92.9%
Fortnite	80−85 +82.2%	45−50 −82.2%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +96.3%	27−30 −96.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	26 +85.7%	14−16 −85.7%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +90.5%	21−24 −90.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +92.7%	55−60 −92.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +100%	18−20 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +87.5%	24−27 −87.5%
Valorant	55−60 +93.3%	30−33 −93.3%
World of Tanks	190−200 +91%	100−105 −91%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +100%	24−27 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +85.7%	14−16 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +100%	3−4 −100%
Dota 2	59 +96.7%	30−33 −96.7%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +80%	30−33 −80%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +87.5%	24−27 −87.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +92.7%	55−60 −92.7%
Valorant	55−60 +93.3%	30−33 −93.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10 +100%	5−6 −100%
Elden Ring	17 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 +100%	5−6 −100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +81.4%	70−75 −81.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
World of Tanks	100−110 +85.5%	55−60 −85.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +81.3%	16−18 −81.3%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +94.4%	18−20 −94.4%
Forza Horizon 4	37 +106%	18−20 −106%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +100%	16−18 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +80%	10−11 −80%
Valorant	35−40 +100%	18−20 −100%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Dota 2	11 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Elden Ring	3 +200%	1−2 −200%
Grand Theft Auto V	11 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +79.2%	24−27 −79.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Dota 2	24−27 +85.7%	14−16 −85.7%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +80%	10−11 −80%
Fortnite	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +90%	10−11 −90%
Valorant	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%

This is how Arc A350M and R7 360 compete in popular games:

Arc A350M is 94% faster in 1080p
Arc A350M is 100% faster in 1440p
Arc A350M is 80% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.56	8.13
Recency	30 March 2022	18 June 2015
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	100 Watt

Arc A350M has a 79.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 360 in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook card while Radeon R7 360 is a desktop one.

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