AMD Radeon 610M vs AMD Radeon R5 M430 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split decision between the AMD Radeon 610M and the AMD Radeon R5 M430, with each GPU claiming one victory in the two Geekbench tests. The most striking result comes from the Vulkan workload, where the Radeon 610M posts a score of 6353 against the R5 M430's 4884. That is a 30.1% advantage for the newer part, a substantial margin that speaks to fundamental architectural efficiency rather than incremental tuning.

In the OpenCL test, the tables turn. The Radeon R5 M430 scores 5152, while the Radeon 610M manages 4535. The delta here is -12% from the 610M's perspective, meaning the older GPU is ahead by roughly twelve percent. This is a curious inversion: the R5 M430, built on GCN 1.0 and running at much lower clocks, outperforms the RDNA 2.0 part in a compute-oriented API. The raw shading unit count likely explains this — the R5 M430 has 320 shading units against the 610M's 128, and in a workload that scales with parallel compute throughput, that advantage can overcome a significant clock speed deficit.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Radeon 610M lands at 5444, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon R5 M430 averages 5018, sitting at the 30th percentile. The gap between their averages is 426 points, roughly 8.5% in favor of the 610M, which aligns with the Vulkan result being the heavier-weighted differentiator. The nearest rivals for each part reinforce this positioning: the 610M sits within 1% of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, -0.4%), the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416, 0.5%), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, -0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, -1%). The R5 M430, meanwhile, is bracketed by the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034, -0.3%), AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998, 0.4%), NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (4979, 0.8%), and AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, -0.9%). Notably, the 610M's closest rivals all sit within a single percentage point, indicating that its average performance is tightly clustered in a competitive band of mobile and entry-level discrete GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational and profound. The Radeon 610M is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 100 mm². The Radeon R5 M430 uses GCN 1.0, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with a die size of 56 mm² and a transistor count of 690 million. The transistor density of the R5 M430 is listed at 12.3M per mm², a figure that underscores the older node's relative coarseness compared to what RDNA 2.0 achieves on 6 nm.

The Radeon 610M's chip is codenamed Mendocino, and it belongs to the Navi II IGP generation. It operates with a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz. The R5 M430, using the Jet chip from the Gem System (R5 M400) generation, runs at a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost of 855 MHz, with memory clocked at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Clock speeds are not directly comparable across architectures, but the 610M's boost clock is more than double the R5 M430's, which is a significant factor in its Vulkan win.

Memory configurations differ starkly. The Radeon 610M uses system-shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system-dependent. The R5 M430 has a dedicated 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This gives the older card a fixed memory footprint and predictable bandwidth, while the 610M's performance is contingent on the host system's memory subsystem.

The compute configurations are where the R5 M430's OpenCL advantage originates. The R5 M430 packs 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The Radeon 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. However, the 610M includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature the R5 M430 lacks entirely. The 610M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R5 M430 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the 610M runs Vulkan 1.4 compared to the R5 M430's Vulkan 1.2.170.

The bus interface differs as well: the 610M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R5 M430 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The 610M has a TDP of 15 W, while the R5 M430 does not have a listed TDP, though both are IGP-class parts with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The 610M's pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s, versus 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s for the R5 M430. In FP32 compute, the R5 M430 edges ahead at 547.2 GFLOPS against the 610M's 486.4 GFLOPS. The 610M also offers FP16 performance of 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a capability the R5 M430 does not list.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 610M is the clear winner in Vulkan-based workloads, and its 30.1% margin in that test is the single largest performance gap between the two. This suggests that applications leveraging modern graphics APIs with lower overhead will favor the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The 610M's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 positions it for contemporary titles and forward-looking rendering features like ray tracing, which it can accelerate via its 2 dedicated RT cores. Its 6 nm process and higher clock speeds (1900 MHz boost) also make it the more efficient part for sustained graphical workloads, particularly in thin-and-light laptops where the 15 W TDP is a hard constraint.

The Radeon R5 M430 wins in OpenCL, a compute-centric API, with a 12% lead. Its 320 shading units — two and a half times the 610M's count — and 20 TMUs give it raw throughput that matters in GPGPU tasks. The dedicated 4 GB of DDR3 memory with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth also means it does not contend with the system for memory access, which can be an advantage in memory-bound compute kernels. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, such as certain video encoding filters or scientific workloads, the R5 M430's architecture is better suited despite its older GCN 1.0 lineage.

For gaming, the 610M is the stronger candidate. The Vulkan result is the closest proxy to modern game rendering, and the 30.1% lead in that test is decisive. The R5 M430's higher FP32 peak (547.2 GFLOPS) does not translate into a Vulkan win, indicating that architectural efficiency and driver optimization matter more than raw FLOPs in contemporary APIs. The 610M's average benchmark score of 5444 versus 5018 for the R5 M430, combined with its higher percentile rank (32nd versus 30th), reinforces that the overall performance envelope favors the newer part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M averages 5444 across its benchmark results, while the AMD Radeon R5 M430 averages 5018. The 610M also holds a higher percentile rank at 32nd versus the R5 M430's 30th.

Q: Why does the Radeon R5 M430 win the OpenCL test despite being older?

A: The R5 M430 has 320 shading units and 20 texture mapping units, compared to the Radeon 610M's 128 shading units and 8 TMUs. This higher parallel compute throughput, combined with its dedicated 4 GB DDR3 memory, allows it to score 5152 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the 610M's 4535.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two GPUs?

A: The largest difference is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Radeon 610M scores 6353 against the R5 M430's 4884, a 30.1% advantage for the 610M.

Q: Does the Radeon 610M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 610M includes 2 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The Radeon R5 M430 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: Which GPU has a more modern API feature set?

A: The Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon R5 M430 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ?

A: The Radeon 610M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Radeon R5 M430 has 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 610M | AMD Radeon R5 M430 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 690 million |

| Die Size | 100 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1900 MHz | 855 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 128 | 320 |

| TMUs | 8 | 20 |

| ROPs | 4 | 8 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 2 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 7.600 GPixel/s | 6.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.20 GTexel/s | 17.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 486.4 GFLOPS | 547.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 15 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Chip | Mendocino | Jet |

| Generation | Navi II IGP (Mendocino Mobile) | Gem System (R5 M400) |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | Vega II IGP | Solar System |

| Successor | Navi III IGP | Polaris Mobile |