Radeon R9 260 vs Radeon R7 360
Radeon R9 260
Popular choices:
Radeon R7 360
Popular choices:
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R7 360 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 260.
| Insight | Radeon R9 260 | Radeon R7 360 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) |
| 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 |
💎 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 16.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 260 | Radeon R7 360 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+16.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($40) | ✅More affordable ($35) |
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 R9 260 and Radeon R7 360
Radeon R9 260
The Radeon R9 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 5 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 947 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,048 points. Launch price was $399.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 260 scores 3,048 and the Radeon R7 360 reaches 3,116 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 260 is built on GCN 2.0 while the Radeon R7 360 uses GCN 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,560 (Radeon R9 260) vs 768 (Radeon R7 360). Raw compute: 4.849 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 260) vs 1.613 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 360).
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | Radeon R7 360 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,048 | 3,116+2% |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+233% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.849 TFLOPS+201% | 1.613 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+300% | 16 |
| TMUs | 160+233% | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 640 KB+233% | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | Radeon R7 360 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon R9 260) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 360) — the Radeon R9 260 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | Radeon R7 360 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 260 draws 275W versus the Radeon R7 360's 80W — a 109.9% difference. The Radeon R7 360 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 450W (Radeon R9 260) vs 450W (Radeon R7 360). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | Radeon R7 360 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 275W | 80W-71% |
| Recommended PSU | 450W | 450W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | — | 165mm |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Perf/Watt | 11.1 | 39.0+251% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 260 launched at $139 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the Radeon R7 360 launched at $109 and now averages $35. The Radeon R7 360 costs 12.5% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 76.2 (Radeon R9 260) vs 89.0 (Radeon R7 360) — the Radeon R7 360 offers 16.8% better value. The Radeon R7 360 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2013).
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | Radeon R7 360 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $139 | $109-22% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40 | $35-13% |
| Performance per Dollar | 76.2 | 89.0+17% |
| Codename | Hawaii | Tobago |
| Release | November 5 2013 | June 18 2015 |
| Ranking | #316 | #576 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 260 and Radeon R7 360
