Radeon R7 360
VS
Radeon Pro 455

Radeon R7 360 vs Radeon Pro 455

AMD

Radeon R7 360

2015Boost: 1000 MHz
VS
AMD

Radeon Pro 455

2016Core: 855 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

About G3D Mark

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon R7 360 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon Pro 455.

InsightRadeon R7 360Radeon Pro 455
Performance
Leading raw performance (+0.1%)
Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%)
Longevity
🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017))
🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020))
Ecosystem
Supports FSR Upscaling
Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM
❌ Less VRAM capacity
✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency
⚡ Higher Power Consumption
💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit
📏 Compact / SFF Friendly
📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The Radeon R7 360 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R7 360 holds the technical lead. Priced at $35 (vs $40), it costs 13% less, resulting in a 14.4% higher cost efficiency score.

InsightRadeon R7 360Radeon Pro 455
Cost Efficiency
Better overall value (+14.4%)
Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost
More affordable ($35)
⚠️Higher upfront cost ($40)

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R7 360 and Radeon Pro 455

AMD

Radeon R7 360

The Radeon R7 360 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,116 points. Launch price was $109.

AMD

Radeon Pro 455

The Radeon Pro 455 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 30 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 855 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,113 points.

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R7 360 scores 3,116 and the Radeon Pro 455 reaches 3,113 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R7 360 is built on GCN 2.0 while the Radeon Pro 455 uses GCN 4.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon R7 360) vs 768 (Radeon Pro 455). Raw compute: 1.613 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 360) vs 1.313 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 455).

FeatureRadeon R7 360Radeon Pro 455
G3D Mark Score
3,116
3,113
Architecture
GCN 2.0
GCN 4.0
Process Node
28 nm
14 nm
Shading Units
768
768
Compute (TFLOPS)
1.613 TFLOPS+23%
1.313 TFLOPS
ROPs
16
16
TMUs
48
48
L1 Cache
192 KB
192 KB
L2 Cache
0.25 MB
1 MB+300%

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

FeatureRadeon R7 360Radeon Pro 455
Upscaling Tech
FSR 1.0 (Software)
FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation
Not Supported
Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction
No
No
Low Latency
AMD Anti-Lag
AMD Anti-Lag
💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 360) vs 1 MB (Radeon Pro 455) — the Radeon Pro 455 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureRadeon R7 360Radeon Pro 455
VRAM Capacity
2 GB
2 GB
Memory Type
GDDR5
GDDR5
Bus Width
128-bit+100%
64-bit
L2 Cache
0.25 MB
1 MB+300%
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (Radeon R7 360) vs 12_0 (Radeon Pro 455). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.

FeatureRadeon R7 360Radeon Pro 455
DirectX
12
12_0
Max Displays
3
0
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R7 360) vs VCE 3.4 (Radeon Pro 455). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs UVD 6.3.

FeatureRadeon R7 360Radeon Pro 455
Encoder
VCE 2.0
VCE 3.4
Decoder
UVD 4.2
UVD 6.3
Codecs
H.264
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R7 360 draws 80W versus the Radeon Pro 455's 35W — a 78.3% difference. The Radeon Pro 455 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 450W (Radeon R7 360) vs 350W (Radeon Pro 455). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 165mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.

FeatureRadeon R7 360Radeon Pro 455
TDP
80W
35W-56%
Recommended PSU
450W
350W-22%
Power Connector
1x 6-pin
PCIe-powered
Length
165mm
1mm
Slots
2
0-100%
Perf/Watt
39.0
88.9+128%
💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon R7 360 launched at $109 MSRP and currently averages $35, while the Radeon Pro 455 launched at $0 and now averages $40. The Radeon R7 360 costs 12.5% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 89.0 (Radeon R7 360) vs 77.8 (Radeon Pro 455) — the Radeon R7 360 offers 14.4% better value. The Radeon Pro 455 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2015).

FeatureRadeon R7 360Radeon Pro 455
MSRP
$109
$0-100%
Avg Price (30d)
$35-13%
$40
Performance per Dollar
89.0+14%
77.8
Codename
Tobago
Baffin
Release
June 18 2015
October 30 2016
Ranking
#576
#577