Arc Pro A30M vs Radeon R7 M360

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 M360 with Arc Pro A30M, including specs and performance data.

R7 M360
2015
4 GB DDR3
1.48

Arc Pro A30M outperforms R7 M360 by a whopping 926% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking979348
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data21.00
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameMesoDG2-128
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)8 August 2022 (2 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 cores3841024
Compute units6no data
Core clock speed1100 MHz1500 MHz
Boost clock speed1125 MHz2000 MHz
Number of transistors1,550 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data50 Watt
Texture fill rate27.00128.0
Floating-point processing power0.864 TFLOPS4.096 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs2464
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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.06.6
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed3.0
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.

R7 M360 1.48
Arc Pro A30M 15.19
+926%

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.

R7 M360 572
Arc Pro A30M 5862
+925%

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 HD11
−900%
110−120
+900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−900%
60−65
+900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Hitman 3 6−7
−900%
60−65
+900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−900%
150−160
+900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−809%
300−310
+809%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−900%
60−65
+900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Hitman 3 6−7
−900%
60−65
+900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−900%
150−160
+900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
−900%
180−190
+900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−809%
300−310
+809%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−900%
60−65
+900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Hitman 3 6−7
−900%
60−65
+900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−900%
150−160
+900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−809%
300−310
+809%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Hitman 3 7−8
−900%
70−75
+900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−900%
50−55
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−900%
70−75
+900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%

This is how R7 M360 and Arc Pro A30M compete in popular games:

  • Arc Pro A30M is 900% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.48 15.19
Recency 5 May 2015 8 August 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm

Arc Pro A30M has a 926.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc Pro A30M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M360 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 M360 is a notebook graphics card while Arc Pro A30M is a mobile workstation one.


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

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 M360
Radeon R7 M360
Intel Arc Pro A30M
Arc Pro A30M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.2 196 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M360 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 6 votes

Rate Arc Pro A30M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.