AMD Radeon HD 8730M vs AMD Radeon R7 M465 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, and the result is a narrow victory for the older AMD Radeon HD 8730M. It scores 5,955, while the AMD Radeon R7 M465 trails at 5,841, giving the HD 8730M a 2% advantage. In raw numbers, this is a gap of 114 points, but its significance should not be overstated—both GPUs sit in the same performance neighborhood, separated by less than the margin that separates either from its closest rivals.

Looking at the HD 8730M’s position, its average benchmark score of 5,955 places it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K620M, which averages 5,957—a delta of 0%, meaning the two are effectively tied. The HD 8730M also edges out the Intel UHD Graphics 730, which posts 5,929 (0.4% behind), and narrowly trails the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5,970 (0.3% behind). The NVIDIA Quadro K4000, at 5,982, sits 0.5% ahead. These deltas are remarkably tight; the HD 8730M’s 5,955 score falls within a 1% window of four other GPUs, suggesting that its performance class is densely packed.

On the other side, the R7 M465’s average of 5,841 puts it in the 33rd percentile, just one point lower than the HD 8730M on the percentile scale. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M435, which scores 5,859 (0.3% ahead of the M465). The Intel UHD Graphics 730 outperforms it by 1.5% with a 5,929 score, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti trails by 1.9% at 5,731. Notably, the R7 M465’s own rival list includes the HD 8730M at 5,955, which is 1.9% ahead. That delta is larger than any other single-rival gap on either list, underscoring that the HD 8730M holds a modest but consistent edge.

The head-to-head win count reflects this: the HD 8730M takes 1 win, the R7 M465 takes 0. However, with only a single benchmark in the dataset, this is a thin verdict. The 2% delta is real but small enough that real-world application differences—driver optimization, thermal behavior, or specific workload characteristics—could flip the result. The data does not support a claim of dominance in either direction; it supports a claim of near-parity with a slight lean toward the HD 8730M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8730M scores 5,955, while the AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5,841. The HD 8730M leads by 2% in this single benchmark.

Q: How does each GPU compare to the Intel UHD Graphics 730?

A: The HD 8730M is 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5,955 vs 5,929). The R7 M465 is 1.5% behind the same Intel GPU (5,841 vs 5,929).

Q: What is the most significant rival gap for either GPU?

A: The R7 M465’s 1.9% deficit to the HD 8730M is the largest single-rival delta listed for either card. The HD 8730M’s largest gap is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K4000.

Q: Do both GPUs share the same shading unit count?

A: Yes, both have 384 shading units. They also both have 24 texture mapping units and 8 render output units.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The R7 M465 boosts to 1,024 MHz, while the HD 8730M boosts to 700 MHz. The R7 M465’s base clock is 730 MHz, also higher than the HD 8730M’s 650 MHz base.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The R7 M465 has 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is higher than the HD 8730M’s 28.80 GB/s. This comes despite the R7 M465 using a 64-bit bus versus the HD 8730M’s 128-bit bus, because the R7 M465 uses GDDR5 memory at a much higher effective speed.

The Verdict

The data paints a picture of two GPUs that are more alike than different, but with distinct trade-offs that matter for specific use cases. In the only head-to-head benchmark, the HD 8730M wins by 2%, and it also holds a higher percentile rank (34th vs 33rd). If the decision hinges solely on the Geekbench OpenCL score, the HD 8730M is the pick.

However, the R7 M465 is not without arguments in its favor. Its boost clock of 1,024 MHz is substantially higher than the HD 8730M’s 700 MHz, and its memory bandwidth of 36.00 GB/s exceeds the HD 8730M’s 28.80 GB/s. These figures suggest that in bandwidth-sensitive workloads—or situations where the boost clock can be sustained—the R7 M465 could close the gap or even overtake its rival, despite losing the single measured benchmark.

The HD 8730M’s lead is narrow, and its rivals are all within 0.5% in either direction, meaning its performance class is crowded. The R7 M465, meanwhile, sits slightly below that cluster, but its architectural advantages (discussed below) mean the benchmark result may not tell the full story. For a user optimizing for the measured OpenCL score, the HD 8730M is the safer choice. For a user who values higher memory bandwidth and a newer architecture, the R7 M465 offers a more modern foundation, despite the benchmark deficit.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every clock and memory specification. The HD 8730M runs a 650 MHz base clock and 700 MHz boost, while the R7 M465 runs 730 MHz base and 1,024 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ even more dramatically: the HD 8730M uses 900 MHz memory (1,800 Mbps effective), whereas the R7 M465 uses 1,125 MHz memory (4.5 Gbps effective).

Memory type and bus width also differ. The HD 8730M uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M465 uses GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yet achieves higher bandwidth at 36.00 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of memory, so capacity is identical, but the R7 M465’s narrower bus is compensated by its much faster memory clock.

Compute rates favor the R7 M465 across the board. Its pixel rate is 8.192 GPixel/s versus the HD 8730M’s 5.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 24.58 GTexel/s versus 16.80 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 786.4 GFLOPS versus 537.6 GFLOPS. The R7 M465 also supports FP16 at 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the HD 8730M does not list an FP16 figure.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ notably. The HD 8730M packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R7 M465 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical (12.3M/mm² vs 12.4M/mm²), indicating similar manufacturing efficiency despite the size difference.

Architecture Differences

The HD 8730M is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Mars chip, and belongs to the Solar System generation (HD 8700M series). The R7 M465 uses GCN 3.0 architecture, built on the Topaz chip, and belongs to the Gem System generation (R7 M400 series). Both use a 28 nm process from TSMC, but that is where the manufacturing similarities end.

The R7 M465’s GCN 3.0 architecture is two generations newer, which explains several of its advantages. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the HD 8730M only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API support is equal in those areas. The newer architecture also enables the FP16 throughput at a 1:1 ratio, a feature absent from the older GCN 1.0 design.

The HD 8730M’s predecessor is listed as London, and its successor as Gem System—which is the generation the R7 M465 belongs to. The R7 M465’s predecessor is Solar System (the HD 8730M’s generation), and its successor is Polaris Mobile. This lineage places the two cards on opposite sides of a generational divide, with the R7 M465 representing the newer iteration of AMD’s mobile GPU line.

Both use PCIe 3.0 x8, so the bus interface is identical. Neither lists a TDP, slot width, power connectors, or display outputs in the data, so those cannot be compared. The R7 M465’s higher boost clock and memory bandwidth are direct consequences of its newer architecture and faster memory subsystem, while the HD 8730M’s wider 128-bit bus is a design choice that partially compensates for its slower DDR3 memory.

Where Each One Wins

The HD 8730M wins in the measured benchmark, posting a 2% higher Geekbench OpenCL score. It also sits at a higher percentile rank (34th vs 33rd), and its nearest rival gaps are all smaller than 0.5%, indicating it is well-positioned within its performance cluster. In scenarios where the OpenCL score is the primary metric—such as general-purpose compute tasks or applications that rely heavily on that API—the HD 8730M is the stronger candidate.

The R7 M465 wins on paper specifications that are not captured by the single benchmark. Its FP32 throughput of 786.4 GFLOPS is 46% higher than the HD 8730M’s 537.6 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 24.58 GTexel/s is 46% higher than 16.80 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 8.192 GPixel/s is 46% higher than 5.600 GPixel/s. These are substantial advantages in raw compute capability, suggesting that workloads which are shader-bound or texture-bound could see meaningful gains on the R7 M465, even though the OpenCL score does not reflect this.

Memory bandwidth also favors the R7 M465 at 36.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, a 25% advantage. For applications that stream large textures or datasets, this could translate into smoother performance. The R7 M465’s GDDR5 memory operates at 4.5 Gbps effective, versus 1.8 Gbps for the HD 8730M’s DDR3—a 2.5x raw speed difference, partially offset by the narrower bus.

The R7 M465 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which matters for emerging workloads that use half-precision arithmetic. The HD 8730M lacks this capability entirely. For users targeting DirectX 12 (12_0) features, the R7 M465 is the only option, as the HD 8730M is limited to 12 (11_1).

In practical terms: the HD 8730M wins the measured benchmark and offers a wider memory bus, which could benefit certain legacy workloads. The R7 M465 wins on every compute rate, memory bandwidth, and API feature level. The data suggests the R7 M465 is the more capable hardware, but the HD 8730M’s superior OpenCL score indicates that architectural efficiency or driver maturity may compensate for its lower raw specs. Users should weigh the specific benchmark result against the broader specification sheet, as the two GPUs appear to excel in different types of workloads.