Radeon RX Vega 3 vs GeForce GTS 360M

Place in the ranking	932	776
Place by popularity	not in top-100	80
Power efficiency	3.10	13.85
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	GT215	Picasso
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	7 January 2010 (14 years ago)	6 January 2019 (5 years 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 cores	96	192
Core clock speed	550 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1001 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	38 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.60	12.01
Floating-point processing power	0.2757 TFLOPS	0.3844 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	413	no data
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	32	12

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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-II	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
SLI options	+	-
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	no 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 type	GDDR5	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	Up to 2000 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	57.6 GB/s	no 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 Connectors	Single Link DVILVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPortVGA	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management

8.0

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.4
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	-

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.

GTS 360M 1.69

RX Vega 3 2.98
+76.3%

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.

GTS 360M 653

RX Vega 3 1149
+76%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTS 360M 5522
+1.5%

RX Vega 3 5441

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:

900p	18 −66.7%	30−35 +66.7%
Full HD	23 +91.7%	12 −91.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−50%

6−7
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7 +0%
Battlefield 5	0−1	5−6
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −20%	6 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −37.5%	21−24 +37.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −100%	6 +100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −14.7%	35−40 +14.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Battlefield 5	0−1	5−6
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
Hitman 3	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −37.5%	21−24 +37.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −22.2%	11 +22.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −41.7%	17 +41.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −14.7%	35−40 +14.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
Hitman 3	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +77.8%	9 −77.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +200%	4 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −14.7%	35−40 +14.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−133%

7−8
+133%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−50%

6−7
+50%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−100%

2−3
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6 +0%	6 +0%
Metro Exodus	7 +0%	7 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4

0−1

This is how GTS 360M and RX Vega 3 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 3 is 67% faster in 900p
GTS 360M is 92% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 360M is 200% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 3 is 220% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTS 360M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
RX Vega 3 is ahead in 42 tests (74%)
there's a draw in 12 tests (21%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.69	2.98
Recency	7 January 2010	6 January 2019
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	38 Watt	15 Watt

RX Vega 3 has a 76.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 153.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 3 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 360M in performance tests.

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