AMD Radeon R5 Graphics vs AMD Radeon R5 M320 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has a higher average benchmark score of 4657, compared to the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3883. The M320 also sits in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 Graphics sits in the 23rd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5183, which is 2.6% higher than the R5 M320's score of 5051. This is a narrow margin, indicating near parity in compute workloads.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 is substantially better in Vulkan, scoring 4262 compared to the R5 Graphics' 2582. The M320 leads by 39.4%, making it the clear choice for Vulkan-based applications.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The Radeon R5 Graphics is closest to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (avg score 3898, 0.4% higher), NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, 0.9% higher), NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930, 1.2% higher), and NVIDIA GeForce MX110 (3834, 1.3% lower). The Radeon R5 M320 is closest to the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657, 0% difference), NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684, 0.6% lower), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, 0.6% higher), and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, 0.8% higher).

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The Radeon R5 Graphics uses the Spectre SL chip with 2,410 million transistors, while the R5 M320 uses the Jet chip with 690 million transistors. The R5 Graphics has roughly 3.5 times more transistors, but the M320 has a higher transistor density at 12.3M per mm² versus 9.8M per mm².

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Radeon R5 M320 has more shading units (320 versus 256) and more TMUs (20 versus 16). It also doubles the ROP count, with 8 ROPs compared to 4 on the R5 Graphics.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is built on the GCN 2.0 architecture, specifically the Kaveri generation integrated graphics processor, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture from the Gem System (R5 M300) family. This architectural gap is significant because GCN 2.0 brought refinements to compute efficiency and API support, although the M320 compensates with a different chip design.

The process nodes are identical at 28 nm, but the foundries differ. The R5 Graphics uses GlobalFoundries, while the R5 M320 is fabricated by TSMC. The die sizes diverge sharply: the R5 Graphics has a 245 mm² die with 2,410 million transistors, whereas the M320 has a much smaller 56 mm² die with 690 million transistors. This means the R5 Graphics integrates far more hardware, but the M320 achieves higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 9.8M per mm²), reflecting a more compact design.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The R5 Graphics relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The R5 M320, by contrast, has dedicated 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory gives the M320 a substantial advantage in memory-intensive tasks, as it does not contend with the CPU for bandwidth.

Clock speeds also differ. The R5 Graphics has no listed base or boost clock, while the R5 M320 runs at a base of 780 MHz and a boost of 855 MHz. Memory clocks on the M320 are rated at 1000 MHz, with 2 Gbps effective speed. The R5 Graphics' memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning it depends entirely on the host platform's RAM.

Feature support shows both GPUs support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. However, the R5 Graphics supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, while the M320 only reaches 12 (11_1). This means the R5 Graphics has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, which could impact compatibility with certain modern rendering features.

The bus interface also differs: the R5 Graphics is an IGP with no separate bus, while the M320 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This gives the M320 a dedicated connection to the system, though it remains an integrated-class part in a portable device.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183, edging out the R5 M320's 5051 by 2.6%. This is a slim victory, but it indicates that the R5 Graphics has a slight edge in raw compute throughput when using OpenCL. The margin is small enough that real-world differences would be minimal, but in synthetic workloads, the R5 Graphics takes the win.

The Vulkan test tells a very different story. The R5 M320 scores 4262, which is 39.4% higher than the R5 Graphics' 2582. This is a dominant margin, showing that the M320 is far better optimized for Vulkan workloads. The R5 Graphics' older GCN 2.0 architecture appears to struggle with Vulkan's lower-level API, while the M320 handles it efficiently despite having fewer transistors.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the R5 M320 leads with 4657 versus 3883 for the R5 Graphics. This 774-point gap represents roughly a 19.9% advantage for the M320. The M320's percentile ranking of 27 versus 23 for the R5 Graphics confirms that it sits higher in the overall performance distribution.

The nearest rivals further contextualize these results. The R5 Graphics' average score of 3883 places it just below the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898) and Quadro K2000D (3919), but just above the GeForce MX110 (3834). The R5 M320's average score of 4657 ties exactly with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, which is a remarkable parity for a low-end mobile GPU. It also sits between the Quadro P400 (4684) and the GTX 970M (4628), showing it performs in the range of mid-range discrete GPUs from several generations ago.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon R5 M320 as the stronger overall performer. Its average benchmark score of 4657 is significantly higher than the R5 Graphics' 3883, and it ranks in the 27th percentile versus the 23rd percentile. The M320's dominant Vulkan win (4262 versus 2582, a 39.4% lead) outweighs the R5 Graphics' narrow OpenCL victory (5183 versus 5051, a 2.6% lead). For any user prioritizing modern graphics APIs or memory bandwidth, the M320 is the better choice.

However, the R5 Graphics is not without merit. Its GCN 2.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, which is higher than the M320's 11_1. It also has a much larger transistor count (2,410 million versus 690 million), which suggests it has more computational headroom for certain workloads. In OpenCL specifically, it outperforms the M320, making it a reasonable pick for compute-focused applications that rely on that API.

The M320's dedicated 4 GB of DDR3 memory with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth is a decisive advantage over the R5 Graphics' system shared memory. This means the M320 will handle texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions more consistently, as it does not depend on system RAM speed or availability. For gaming or graphics tasks, the M320 is the clear recommendation.

Users should pick the R5 M320 if they need better Vulkan performance, higher average scores, or dedicated memory. Users should consider the R5 Graphics if they prioritize OpenCL compute or require the higher DirectX 12 feature level. Overall, the M320 is the more balanced and capable part.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specifications. The chip design is different: the R5 Graphics uses Spectre SL, while the M320 uses Jet. The architecture differs as well, with GCN 2.0 on the R5 Graphics and GCN 1.0 on the M320. The generation is listed as GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri) for the R5 Graphics and Gem System (R5 M300) for the M320.

The foundry and physical characteristics vary: GlobalFoundries produces the R5 Graphics, while TSMC produces the M320. Transistor counts are 2,410 million versus 690 million, and die sizes are 245 mm² versus 56 mm². Transistor density is 9.8M per mm² on the R5 Graphics and 12.3M per mm² on the M320.

Clock speeds show a difference: the R5 Graphics has no listed base or boost clock, while the M320 has a base of 780 MHz and a boost of 855 MHz. Memory configurations are starkly different: the R5 Graphics has system shared memory, while the M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units differ in count: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs on the R5 Graphics versus 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the M320. Pixel rate is 3.032 GPixel/s on the R5 Graphics and 6.840 GPixel/s on the M320. Texture rate is 12.13 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 388.1 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS.

The bus interface differs: IGP for the R5 Graphics and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the M320. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the R5 Graphics and portable device dependent for the M320. The power draw is listed as 15 W TDP for the R5 Graphics, while the M320 has no TDP listed. Both use IGP slot width and have no power connectors. The release dates differ: September 2014 for the R5 Graphics and May 2015 for the M320.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins in OpenCL compute tasks. Its score of 5183 in Geekbench OpenCL surpasses the M320's 5051, and this advantage likely stems from its larger transistor budget and GCN 2.0 architecture. It also supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, which is higher than the M320's 11_1, making it better suited for applications that require that specific feature level. The R5 Graphics also has a lower TDP of 15 W, which could be advantageous in power-constrained systems.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins decisively in Vulkan performance, scoring 4262 versus 2582, a 39.4% lead. This makes it the preferred choice for Vulkan-based games and applications. It also has higher raw throughput metrics: FP32 performance of 547.2 GFLOPS versus 388.1 GFLOPS, a 41% advantage. Its pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s is more than double the R5 Graphics' 3.032 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 17.10 GTexel/s exceeds the R5 Graphics' 12.13 GTexel/s.

The M320's dedicated 4 GB of DDR3 memory with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth is a clear win for memory-intensive workloads. The R5 Graphics relies on system shared memory, which is system dependent and can bottleneck performance. The M320 also has more shading units (320 versus 256), more TMUs (20 versus 16), and more ROPs (8 versus 4), giving it a structural advantage in rasterization and pixel processing.

For users who primarily run OpenCL compute workloads, the R5 Graphics offers a slight edge. For users who play Vulkan-based games or need consistent memory bandwidth, the M320 is the superior choice. The M320's higher average benchmark score (4657 versus 3883) and higher percentile ranking (27 versus 23) make it the better all-around performer, while the R5 Graphics remains a niche pick for specific compute scenarios.