AMD Radeon R5 Graphics vs AMD Radeon R5 M255 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 records an average benchmark score of 4788, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics averages 3883. The M255 sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 23rd percentile for the R5 Graphics.

Q: How do the two compare in raw compute throughput?

A: The Radeon R5 M255 delivers 721.9 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, nearly double the 388.1 GFLOPS of the Radeon R5 Graphics. The M255 also offers FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, a capability not listed for the integrated part.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The Radeon R5 M255 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 Graphics uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and no fixed bus width.

Q: Which GPU wins in the OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The Radeon R5 Graphics wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5183 versus 4650 for the M255, a delta of 11.5% in favor of the integrated GPU.

Q: Which GPU wins in the Vulkan benchmark, and by how much?

A: The Radeon R5 M255 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 4925 points against 2582 for the R5 Graphics. The M255 leads by 47.6% in this workload.

Q: What are the production statuses and release dates for both parts?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The Radeon R5 Graphics was released on 2014-09-16, and the Radeon R5 M255 followed on 2014-10-11.

The Verdict

The data splits the decision cleanly by workload type. For compute-heavy tasks measured by OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the better choice: its 5183 score beats the M255's 4650 by 11.5%, despite the integrated GPU having fewer shading units (256 vs 384) and lower clock rates. This suggests the R5 Graphics benefits from its system-shared memory architecture in this specific test.

For graphics and gaming APIs, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the clear winner. Its Vulkan score of 4925 crushes the R5 Graphics' 2582, a 47.6% advantage. The M255's dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth provides a stable foundation that the shared-memory IGP cannot match. Users prioritizing modern API performance in games should select the M255.

The overall average benchmark score also favors the M255: 4788 versus 3883, a gap of roughly 23%. The M255 sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, five points higher than the R5 Graphics. However, the R5 Graphics' nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898 average, only 0.4% ahead), while the M255's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791 average, 0.1% ahead), which is an odd pairing in the database but shows how close the M255 sits to that score.

For users who need maximum OpenCL compute in a low-power integrated package, the R5 Graphics wins one benchmark but loses the overall average. For nearly any other scenario, particularly Vulkan-based workloads or sustained gaming, the M255 is the superior part. The tie in head-to-head wins (1-1) reflects this split personality.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded benchmarks tell opposite stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183 against the M255's 4650. That 533-point difference translates to an 11.5% win for the integrated GPU. This is notable because the R5 Graphics has only 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, while the M255 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The M255 also has a higher FP32 throughput (721.9 GFLOPS vs 388.1 GFLOPS) and a higher texture rate (22.56 GTexel/s vs 12.13 GTexel/s). Despite all these hardware disadvantages, the R5 Graphics still wins OpenCL, which points to driver or memory-access advantages in that specific API.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the situation reverses completely. The Radeon R5 M255 scores 4925, nearly double the R5 Graphics' 2582. The delta percentage is 47.6% in favor of the M255. This is a massive gap that aligns with the hardware specs: the M255's dedicated memory and higher pixel rate (7.520 GPixel/s vs 3.032 GPixel/s) give it a clear edge in graphics-bound workloads. The M255's boost clock of 940 MHz and memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) provide consistent performance, whereas the R5 Graphics relies entirely on system memory with bandwidth that varies by platform.

The average benchmark score, which likely weights multiple tests, favors the M255 at 4788 versus 3883. That 905-point gap puts the M255 at the 28th percentile versus the R5 Graphics' 23rd. In the nearest-rival context, the R5 Graphics sits just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898 average) and 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 (3834 average). The M255, meanwhile, sits 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791), 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752), and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844).

Specification Differences

The memory subsystem differs fundamentally between these two GPUs. The Radeon R5 Graphics uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and bandwidth that depends entirely on the host system. The Radeon R5 M255 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a fixed 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. This is the single most impactful difference for gaming and graphics workloads.

Clock behavior also differs. The R5 Graphics has no listed base or boost clock, with memory clock marked as "System Shared." The M255 has a base clock of 925 MHz, a boost clock of 940 MHz, and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). These concrete clock values give the M255 predictable performance characteristics.

The compute units diverge significantly. The R5 Graphics packs 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The M255 scales up to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate jumps from 3.032 GPixel/s on the R5 Graphics to 7.520 GPixel/s on the M255. Texture rate rises from 12.13 GTexel/s to 22.56 GTexel/s. FP32 performance more than doubles from 388.1 GFLOPS to 721.9 GFLOPS, and the M255 adds FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

The bus interface differs as well: the R5 Graphics is an IGP with no slot width or power connectors, while the M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are motherboard-dependent for the R5 Graphics, while the M255 lists none in the database. The R5 Graphics has a TDP of 15 W; the M255 has no listed TDP.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different GCN generations. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses GCN 2.0 architecture on the Spectre SL chip, part of the Kaveri IGP generation. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses GCN 3.0 architecture on the Topaz chip, belonging to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. This generation step accounts for some of the efficiency and feature differences.

The manufacturing process is the same 28 nm node for both, but the foundries differ. The R5 Graphics is built by GlobalFoundries, while the M255 comes from TSMC. Transistor counts and die sizes reflect different design goals: the R5 Graphics integrates 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, while the M255 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the M255 at 12.4M per mm² versus 9.8M per mm² for the R5 Graphics.

Both share identical API support: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The architectural lineage differs: the R5 Graphics' predecessor is the TeraScale 3 IGP and its successor is the GCN 3.0 IGP, while the M255's predecessor is the Solar System and its successor is the Polaris Mobile.

The R5 Graphics is a pure integrated part, sharing memory with the CPU and drawing just 15 W. The M255 is a discrete mobile GPU with its own 2 GB memory pool, which explains its higher compute rates despite the smaller die. The GCN 3.0 architecture in the M255 brings the Vulkan performance advantage seen in the benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 5183 OpenCL score beats the M255 by 11.5%, and this advantage likely stems from how the system-shared memory interacts with the IGP design. For users running OpenCL-based applications such as certain scientific tools, video encoding, or compute shaders, the R5 Graphics holds a measurable edge. It also consumes only 15 W, making it suitable for low-power systems where the M255's power draw is not listed.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in Vulkan graphics workloads by a wide margin. Its 4925 Vulkan score is 47.6% higher than the R5 Graphics' 2582. This makes the M255 the clear choice for gaming, especially titles using Vulkan or DirectX 12. The dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory and 32.00 GB/s bandwidth provide consistent frame pacing, while the higher pixel rate (7.520 GPixel/s) and texture rate (22.56 GTexel/s) support more detailed scenes.

The M255 also wins in raw compute capability: 721.9 GFLOPS FP32 versus 388.1 GFLOPS for the R5 Graphics. This means the M255 handles more parallel math per second, beneficial for physics simulations, image processing, and compute-heavy game effects. Its FP16 support at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) adds flexibility for applications that use half-precision math.

The average benchmark score favors the M255 at 4788 versus 3883. This overall metric suggests that in a balanced mix of workloads, the M255 delivers more consistent performance. The R5 Graphics' single OpenCL win does not offset the M255's dominance in Vulkan and overall compute throughput.

For users with a motherboard-dependent display setup and no room for a discrete GPU, the R5 Graphics is the only option. For users with a PCIe 3.0 x8 slot and a need for dedicated graphics memory, the M255 offers superior performance in most scenarios. The tie in head-to-head wins (1-1) masks the fact that the Vulkan gap is over four times larger than the OpenCL gap, making the M255 the more balanced and generally preferable part.