ATI FirePro M7740 vs Radeon R7 360

#ad 
Buy
Radeon R7 360 Radeon R7 360 896SP Radeon R7 360E Radeon R9 360 OEM Radeon RX 455 OEM
VS
#ad 
Buy
FirePro M5725 FirePro M5800 FirePro M7740 FirePro M7820

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 360 with FirePro M7740, including specs and performance data.

R7 360
2015
2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
7.03
+280%

R7 360 outperforms ATI M7740 by a whopping 280% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R7 360 R7 360
ATI M7740 FirePro M7740

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking530885
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.83no data
Power efficiency5.582.45
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameTobagoM97
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)4 August 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores768640
Core clock speedno data650 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,080 million826 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate50.4020.80
Floating-point processing power1.613 TFLOPS0.832 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4832

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length165 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed6000 MHz846 MHz
Memory bandwidth112 GB/s54.14 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1210.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.34.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 7.03 1.85
Recency 18 June 2015 4 August 2009
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 60 Watt

R7 360 has a 280% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

ATI M7740, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 360 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M7740 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 360 is a desktop card while FirePro M7740 is a mobile workstation 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 R7 360
Radeon R7 360
ATI FirePro M7740
FirePro M7740
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

R7 360 Radeon R7 360
vs
GTX 470 GeForce GTX 470
ATI M7740 FirePro M7740
vs
K1000M Quadro K1000M
R7 360 Radeon R7 360
vs
RX 560X Radeon RX 560X
GTX 660 Rev. 2 NVIDIA GTX 660 Rev. 2
vs
R7 430 OEM 430 OEM
RX 580 XTR AMD RX 580 XTR
vs
R7 430 OEM 430 OEM
Apple M3 Pro 14-Core GPU Apple Pro 14-Core GPU
vs
R7 430 OEM 430 OEM
Vega 7 AMD Vega 7
vs
R7 360E 360E
RX Vega M GL / 870 AMD RX Vega M GL / 870
vs
R9 380X 380X
FirePro M5100 FirePro M5100
vs
R9 390 390
HD Graphics 630 HD Graphics 630
vs
R9 390 390
GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB NVIDIA GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB
vs
R9 280 280
Pro 560 AMD Pro 560
vs
R7 265 265
Steam Deck GPU AMD Deck GPU
vs
R5 235 OEM 235 OEM

Community ratings

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

3.8 684 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate FirePro M7740 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 360 or FirePro M7740, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.