AMD Radeon 610M vs AMD Radeon R5 M255 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their recorded benchmark wins exactly, with one victory each in the database's head-to-head tests. The overall average benchmark score tells a similar story of near-parity, with the AMD Radeon 610M averaging 5444 points against the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4788 points, a difference of roughly 14% in favor of the newer part.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon R5 M255 takes the win with a score of 4650 against the Radeon 610M's 4535. That is a 2.5% margin, a narrow but measurable lead for the older discrete GPU. The Radeon 610M's result places it just behind rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467 average, 0.4% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483 average, 0.7% ahead), while sitting slightly above the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416 average, 0.5% behind). The R5 M255's OpenCL score of 4650 lands it in a cluster with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791 average, 0.1% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844 average, 1.2% ahead), which shows how competitive this older chip remains in compute workloads despite its age.

The Vulkan test flips the script decisively. The Radeon 610M scores 6353, which is 29% higher than the R5 M255's 4925. That is the single largest margin in either direction across the head-to-head results. The Radeon 610M's Vulkan performance is its standout trait, and it is worth remembering its OpenCL score is actually its weaker of the two benchmark results. The R5 M255, by contrast, performs better in OpenCL than in Vulkan, suggesting its architecture favors legacy compute paths over modern graphics APIs.

The percentile rankings reflect this split as well. The Radeon 610M sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the R5 M255 sits at the 28th percentile. Neither part is a high-flyer, but the 610M's overall standing is four percentile points higher, driven almost entirely by its Vulkan advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R5 M255 wins in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 4650 score in that test is 2.5% ahead of the Radeon 610M, and its architecture with 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units gives it a raw throughput edge in certain legacy compute scenarios. The R5 M255 also has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which can be an advantage in workloads that rely on local memory rather than system-shared memory. For OpenCL tasks that are not heavily dependent on modern API features, the R5 M255 is the safer choice based on the recorded data.

The Radeon 610M wins decisively in Vulkan. Its 6353 score is 29% ahead of the R5 M255, and this is the kind of margin that matters for modern gaming and graphics workloads. Vulkan is increasingly the API of choice for game engines and emulators, and the 610M's RDNA 2.0 architecture with 2 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) gives it features that the R5 M255 simply cannot match. The 610M also has a higher boost clock at 1900 MHz versus the R5 M255's 940 MHz, which contributes to its responsiveness in API-bound scenarios.

The split is clean: the R5 M255 for legacy compute, the 610M for modern graphics. The database shows one win each, but the magnitude of the Vulkan win carries more weight in practical terms because it points to the 610M being the part that will feel faster in current software.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design eras. The Radeon 610M uses the Mendocino chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 100 mm². The Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 125 mm² and 1,550 million transistors. The process node difference is stark: 6 nm versus 28 nm, which explains why the 610M can deliver competitive performance with far fewer resources.

The Radeon 610M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 raster output units. The R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. On paper, the R5 M255 has three times the shading units and three times the TMUs, yet it only manages a 2.5% win in OpenCL and loses by 29% in Vulkan. That reflects the architectural efficiency of RDNA 2.0 over GCN 3.0. The 610M also has 2 ray tracing cores, which the R5 M255 lacks entirely.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The 610M runs at a base of 1500 MHz with a boost of 1900 MHz, while the R5 M255 runs at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. The 610M's boost clock is more than double the R5 M255's, which helps explain its Vulkan dominance despite having fewer execution units. The memory configurations differ as well: the 610M uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, while the R5 M255 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

API support is another differentiator. The 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 610M's newer API stack aligns with its RDNA 2.0 generation and ray tracing capabilities. The R5 M255's GCN 3.0 architecture predates those features, and its Vulkan support is older.

The bus interface also differs: the 610M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R5 M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The 610M is an IGP with no power connectors and a 15 W TDP, while the R5 M255's TDP is not recorded in the database. The 610M's process node efficiency is evident in that low power envelope, which is typical for an integrated part.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for most users: the AMD Radeon 610M is the better modern choice. Its 29% Vulkan lead is the kind of margin that matters in real-world gaming and graphics applications, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and ray tracing puts it in a different feature class than the R5 M255. The 610M also sits at a higher percentile rank (32nd versus 28th) and has a higher average benchmark score (5444 versus 4788), which reinforces its overall superiority.

The Radeon R5 M255 is not without merit, but its strength is narrow. Its 2.5% OpenCL lead is a modest edge in a workload that is increasingly less relevant for consumer hardware. The R5 M255's dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory and 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth may help in specific legacy compute tasks, and its 384 shading units give it raw parallel throughput that the 610M lacks. For users running old OpenCL-based applications that do not use Vulkan, the R5 M255 is the better part.

However, the R5 M255 is a 2014 part, while the 610M is a 2022 part. The architectural gap is enormous: RDNA 2.0 on 6 nm versus GCN 3.0 on 28 nm. The 610M achieves competitive or better performance with a fraction of the hardware resources, which is exactly what a modern integrated GPU should do. The R5 M255's era is over, and the data shows it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M is significantly faster in Vulkan, scoring 6353 against the Radeon R5 M255's 4925, a 29% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon R5 M255 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the R5 M255 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4650 against the 610M's 4535, a 2.5% margin.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Radeon 610M averages 5444 points, while the R5 M255 averages 4788 points, making the 610M approximately 14% higher on average.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The R5 M255 has 384 shading units, while the 610M has 128 shading units, yet the 610M still wins in overall average score and Vulkan performance.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The Radeon 610M uses a 6 nm process with a 100 mm² die, while the R5 M255 uses a 28 nm process with a 125 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Process Node: 6 nm (610M) versus 28 nm (R5 M255)
• Die Size: 100 mm² (610M) versus 125 mm² (R5 M255)
• Transistors: Not recorded (610M) versus 1,550 million (R5 M255)
• Transistor Density: Not recorded (610M) versus 12.4M per mm² (R5 M255)
• Base Clock: 1500 MHz (610M) versus 925 MHz (R5 M255)
• Boost Clock: 1900 MHz (610M) versus 940 MHz (R5 M255)
• Memory Size: System Shared (610M) versus 2 GB (R5 M255)
• Memory Type: System Shared (610M) versus DDR3 (R5 M255)
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared (610M) versus 128 bit (R5 M255)
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent (610M) versus 32.00 GB/s (R5 M255)
• Shading Units: 128 (610M) versus 384 (R5 M255)
• Texture Mapping Units: 8 (610M) versus 24 (R5 M255)
• Raster Output Units: 4 (610M) versus 8 (R5 M255)
• Ray Tracing Cores: 2 (610M) versus None (R5 M255)
• Pixel Rate: 7.600 GPixel/s (610M) versus 7.520 GPixel/s (R5 M255)
• Texture Rate: 15.20 GTexel/s (610M) versus 22.56 GTexel/s (R5 M255)
• FP32 Performance: 486.4 GFLOPS (610M) versus 721.9 GFLOPS (R5 M255)
• FP16 Performance: 972.8 GFLOPS 2:1 (610M) versus 721.9 GFLOPS 1:1 (R5 M255)
• TDP: 15 W (610M) versus not recorded (R5 M255)
• Slot Width: IGP (610M) versus not recorded (R5 M255)
• Power Connectors: None (610M) versus not recorded (R5 M255)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 (610M) versus PCIe 3.0 x8 (R5 M255)
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent (610M) versus not recorded (R5 M255)
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate 12_2 (610M) versus 12 12_0 (R5 M255)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 (610M) versus 1.2.170 (R5 M255)
• Release Date: 2022-09-19 (610M) versus 2014-10-11 (R5 M255)
• Predecessor: Vega II IGP (610M) versus Solar System (R5 M255)
• Successor: Navi III IGP (610M) versus Polaris Mobile (R5 M255)
• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 (610M) versus GCN 3.0 (R5 M255)
• Generation: Navi II IGP Mendocino Mobile (610M) versus Gem System R5 M200 (R5 M255)
• Geekbench OpenCL Score: 4535 (610M) versus 4650 (R5 M255)
• Geekbench Vulkan Score: 6353 (610M) versus 4925 (R5 M255)
• Average Benchmark Score: 5444 (610M) versus 4788 (R5 M255)
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 32 (610M) versus 28 (R5 M255)