GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, decisively favors the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics. The AMD part scores 5183, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694. That is a delta of 40.3%, a substantial margin in raw compute throughput. In practical terms, the Radeon R5 completes the OpenCL workload nearly one and a half times as fast as the 825M.

Context from the nearest-rival tables reinforces this gap. The Radeon R5’s average benchmark score of 3883 places it slightly above the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898, -0.4%) and below the Quadro K2000D (3919, -0.9%), but notably ahead of the GeForce MX110 (3834, +1.3%). The GeForce 825M’s average score of 3694 sits just under the GeForce GT 740M (3717, -0.6%) and Quadro 3000M (3718, -0.6%), while leading the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, +1.2%) and trailing the GeForce GT 635M (3740, -1.2%). In percentile terms, the Radeon R5 ranks at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, one point higher than the 825M’s 22nd percentile, a small but consistent edge across the entire benchmark distribution.

The 40.3% OpenCL delta is the only direct comparison available, so it carries outsized weight. There is no Vulkan result for the 825M, meaning the AMD part’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 2582 stands without a counterpart. That absence suggests the 825M may lack equivalent compute-API coverage or simply was not tested in that workload. Either way, the data shows a clear winner in the one metric both share.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses the Spectre SL chip built on GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm process. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip on Kepler 2.0 architecture, made by TSMC on the same 28 nm node. Both are end-of-life products, but their internal layouts diverge sharply.

The Radeon R5 packs 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and only 4 ROPs. The 825M counters with 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, exactly 50% more shaders, double the texture units, and double the ROP count. Those raw hardware counts suggest the NVIDIA part should dominate in fill-rate-bound and shader-heavy scenarios. Indeed, the pixel rate of the 825M is 7.528 GPixel/s versus 3.032 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and the texture rate is 30.11 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s. Yet the OpenCL benchmark tells the opposite story, implying the AMD architecture extracts more useful compute per unit of hardware, or that the memory subsystem becomes the limiting factor on the NVIDIA side.

Transistor counts differ markedly: the Radeon R5 has 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, yielding a density of 9.8M per mm². The 825M has only 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die, for a higher density of 11.7M per mm². That smaller, denser chip consumes less area but also carries less raw compute headroom. The Radeon’s larger die likely accommodates wider internal data paths or more complex scheduling logic, which may explain its superior OpenCL showing despite fewer execution units.

Memory configurations are entirely dissimilar. The Radeon R5 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth, it has no dedicated VRAM. The 825M has 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Radeon’s reliance on shared system memory creates a variable performance profile: its memory speed depends entirely on the host system’s RAM, which could help or hurt depending on the platform. The 825M’s fixed 14.40 GB/s bandwidth is modest but predictable. In the OpenCL test, the Radeon’s flexibility clearly paid off, but in real-world gaming the 825M’s dedicated memory might offer more consistent frame pacing.

Clock speeds also differentiate the two. The 825M runs at an 850 MHz base clock with a 941 MHz boost, while the Radeon R5 lists no fixed base or boost clock, its operating frequency is likely governed by the host CPU’s power budget. The 825M’s 33 W TDP more than doubles the Radeon’s 15 W TDP, reflecting the NVIDIA part’s higher clocks and dedicated memory controller. The Radeon’s lower power draw is a consequence of its IGP design, sharing the CPU’s thermal envelope.

API support shows a curious inversion. The Radeon R5 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 825M also lists DirectX 12 but only at feature level 11_0, alongside OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. That means the Radeon offers fuller DirectX 12 feature coverage, while the NVIDIA part’s Vulkan version is marginally newer. For modern titles that leverage DX12’s explicit multi-adapter or async compute features, the Radeon holds a structural advantage.

Bus interfaces differ as well: the Radeon R5 connects via IGP (integrated into the CPU package), while the 825M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The IGP design eliminates dedicated VRAM and adds memory latency, but it also removes the PCIe transfer bottleneck for shared data. The 825M’s PCIe link is conventional for a discrete mobile GPU, though the x8 width is narrower than the typical x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics averages 3883 across all benchmarks, versus 3694 for the NVIDIA GeForce 825M, a lead of roughly 5.1% for the AMD part.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 825M have more shading units than the AMD Radeon R5?

A: Yes. The 825M has 384 shading units, while the Radeon R5 has 256, a 50% advantage for NVIDIA in raw shader count.

Q: Why does the AMD Radeon R5 win the OpenCL benchmark despite having fewer shaders?

A: The benchmark results show a 40.3% win for the Radeon, but the cause is not directly stated in the data. The Radeon’s larger die (245 mm² vs 87 mm²) and greater transistor count (2,410 million vs 1,020 million) suggest a more complex compute architecture, while the 825M’s higher TDP (33 W vs 15 W) and dedicated 14.40 GB/s memory may not translate into OpenCL efficiency.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Radeon R5 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The 825M has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The Radeon R5 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, while the 825M supports DirectX 12 only at feature level 11_0. The Radeon also offers Vulkan 1.2.170, compared to the 825M’s Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The Radeon R5 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, one point above the 825M’s 22nd percentile. Both are low-end parts by modern standards.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for compute-oriented workloads: the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins the only shared benchmark by 40.3% and holds a higher average benchmark score (3883 vs 3694). Its 23rd percentile ranking edges out the 825M’s 22nd percentile, and its DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a full feature level ahead of the NVIDIA part’s 11_0. For users running OpenCL-accelerated tasks or modern DX12 titles, the Radeon is the stronger option.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce 825M retains advantages in specific domains. Its 384 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, double the Radeon’s texture and ROP counts, along with its 7.528 GPixel/s pixel rate and 30.11 GTexel/s texture rate, make it better suited for traditional rasterization workloads where fill rate matters. The 825M’s dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 memory with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance that does not depend on the host system’s RAM, unlike the Radeon’s system-shared memory. Its higher boost clock of 941 MHz and 33 W TDP also suggest more consistent sustained performance under load, at the cost of greater power consumption.

The choice ultimately hinges on workload type. If the task is compute-heavy, especially OpenCL or DirectX 12 applications, the Radeon R5 is the clear winner based on the 40.3% benchmark delta. If the task is traditional 3D rendering with heavy texture or pixel throughput, the 825M’s superior TMU and ROP counts give it a theoretical edge, though no direct benchmark confirms this. Given that both parts are end-of-life and low-end, neither is suitable for demanding modern gaming. The data simply shows that the AMD part computes faster, while the NVIDIA part packs more conventional graphics hardware.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics | NVIDIA GeForce 825M |

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

| Chip | Spectre SL | GK208 |

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Kepler 2.0 |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,410 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 245 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 9.8M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 850 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 941 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 16 | 32 |

| ROPs | 4 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 3.032 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 12.13 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 388.1 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 33 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-16 | 2014-01-26 |

| Predecessor | TeraScale 3 IGP | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | GCN 3.0 IGP | GeForce 900M |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 5183 | 3694 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 2582 | Not available |

| Average Benchmark Score | 3883 | 3694 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 23 | 22 |