GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their benchmark matchups exactly one win apiece, but the margins are not symmetrical. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics posts a score of 5,183 against the NVIDIA GeForce 830M's 4,324, giving AMD a 16.6% lead. That is a substantial gap in raw compute throughput, reflecting the Radeon's higher shader efficiency in OpenCL workloads. The NVIDIA part, however, dominates the Vulkan test with a score of 3,590 versus 2,582, a 39% advantage, a much larger margin in absolute percentage terms than AMD's OpenCL win.

The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The 830M's average is 3,957, while the R5 Graphics averages 3,883. That puts NVIDIA roughly 1.9% ahead overall, but the delta is small enough that the two parts are effectively in the same performance tier. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the 830M sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 Graphics lands at the 23rd percentile. Both are firmly in the entry-level segment, but the 830M edges ahead in aggregate.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The 830M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3,956 (a 0% delta), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3,953 (+0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3,964 (-0.2%), and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3,977 (-0.5%). The R5 Graphics' nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 at 3,898 (-0.4%), the Quadro K2000D at 3,919 (-0.9%), the Quadro 2000D at 3,930 (-1.2%), and the GeForce MX110 at 3,834 (+1.3%). These rival lists show that both parts are clustered within roughly 1.5% of their nearest competitors, underscoring how tightly packed entry-level GPUs are in this generation.

The nature of the wins matters more than the raw count. AMD's OpenCL victory is broad and compute-oriented, while NVIDIA's Vulkan win is sharper and graphics-oriented. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the R5 Graphics offers a clear edge. For Vulkan-based games or workloads, the 830M is decisively faster. The 39% Vulkan margin is nearly twice as large as the 16.6% OpenCL margin, suggesting NVIDIA's architecture is better optimized for modern graphics APIs.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M is built on the GM108 chip using the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses the Spectre SL chip based on GCN 2.0, manufactured by GlobalFoundries also on 28 nm, but with a much larger 245 mm² die containing 2,410 million transistors, a density of 9.8 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystem is where the two diverge most sharply. The 830M has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth and running at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). The R5 Graphics, being an integrated graphics processor (IGP), uses System Shared memory, the size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system-dependent. This is a critical distinction: the 830M's dedicated memory provides predictable performance, while the R5 Graphics is at the mercy of the host system's RAM configuration and bandwidth.

Both GPUs have 256 shading units and 16 texture mapping units, but the ROP count differs: the 830M has 8 ROPs versus the R5 Graphics' 4. This explains the pixel rate disparity, the 830M achieves 9.200 GPixel/s against the R5's 3.032 GPixel/s, a 3x advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The texture rates are closer: 18.40 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 12.13 GTexel/s for AMD. In raw FP32 compute, the 830M delivers 588.8 GFLOPS versus 388.1 GFLOPS, a 51.7% advantage.

Clock speeds tell another part of the story. The 830M runs at a fixed 1,082 MHz base clock with a 1,150 MHz boost. The R5 Graphics has no listed base or boost clocks, its performance is dependent on the host CPU's configuration and thermal envelope. Power consumption differs significantly: the 830M has a 33 W TDP, while the R5 Graphics draws just 15 W, reflecting its integrated nature and shared power budget with the CPU.

API support is broadly similar, but with notable differences. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The 830M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 Graphics supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The 830M's DirectX 12 feature level is 11_0, whereas the R5 Graphics reaches 12_0, a higher feature level. The R5 Graphics uses an IGP bus interface with motherboard-dependent display outputs, while the 830M uses PCIe 3.0 x8 with portable-device-dependent outputs.

# The Verdict

The data points to a split decision. For compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the clear winner, its 5,183 OpenCL score is 16.6% ahead of the 830M's 4,324. For Vulkan-based graphics, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M wins decisively with a 39% margin (3,590 versus 2,582). The average benchmark scores slightly favor NVIDIA (3,957 versus 3,883, about 1.9% higher), but that edge is narrow enough to be within run-to-run variance.

The architecture differences reinforce the benchmark results. The 830M's dedicated memory and higher pixel rate (9.200 GPixel/s versus 3.032 GPixel/s) make it better suited for traditional rasterization and memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The R5 Graphics' higher DirectX 12 feature level (12_0 versus 11_0) and lower power draw (15 W versus 33 W) make it an attractive option for thin-and-light systems where power efficiency is paramount.

Users who play Vulkan-based games or run graphics applications that leverage modern APIs should choose the 830M. Users who rely on OpenCL compute acceleration, for video encoding, physics simulation, or general-purpose GPU computing, should prefer the R5 Graphics. There is no universal winner; the correct choice depends entirely on the workload mix.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M has an average benchmark score of 3,957, which is about 1.9% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics' average of 3,883.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics in OpenCL?

A: The R5 Graphics scores 5,183 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the 830M's 4,324, giving AMD a 16.6% lead in that specific workload.

Q: What is the Vulkan performance difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 3,590 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the R5 Graphics' 2,582, which translates to a 39% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 256 shading units and 16 texture mapping units. However, the 830M has 8 ROPs while the R5 Graphics has only 4.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The 830M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 Graphics uses System Shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

# Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce 830M wins in:

• Vulkan-based graphics workloads: 39% ahead of the R5 Graphics in Geekbench Vulkan (3,590 versus 2,582)
• Average benchmark score: 3,957 versus 3,883, a 1.9% aggregate advantage
• Pixel fill rate: 9.200 GPixel/s versus 3.032 GPixel/s, a 3x advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios
• Texture fill rate: 18.40 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s, roughly 51.7% higher
• FP32 compute: 588.8 GFLOPS versus 388.1 GFLOPS, a 51.7% lead
• Dedicated memory: 2 GB DDR3 with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth versus system-shared memory
• Higher clock speeds: 1,082 MHz base and 1,150 MHz boost versus no fixed clocks
• Newer Vulkan support: version 1.4 versus 1.2.170
• Higher transistor density: 13.2M per mm² versus 9.8M per mm²

AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins in:

• OpenCL compute: 5,183 versus 4,324, a 16.6% advantage
• Power efficiency: 15 W TDP versus 33 W, enabling thinner, cooler systems
• DirectX 12 feature level: 12_0 versus 11_0, better support for modern DirectX features
• Lower production footprint: 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die versus 1,020 million on 77 mm²
• Larger die area, which may allow for more thermal headroom in shared-power configurations
• System-shared memory eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM allocation

The performance split is clean: NVIDIA wins graphics and memory bandwidth, AMD wins compute efficiency and power draw. For gaming or graphics-intensive tasks, the 830M is the stronger part. For compute acceleration or battery-conscious designs, the R5 Graphics has a clear rationale. The 24th versus 23rd percentile rankings confirm both are entry-level parts, and users should set expectations accordingly. The 830M's average score of 3,957 places it just above the Radeon R5 M420 at 3,956 and the GT 745M at 3,953, while the R5 Graphics' 3,883 average sits just below the Quadro 2000's 3,898 and above the GeForce MX110's 3,834. In the end, the choice hinges on whether OpenCL or Vulkan dominates the intended workload, there is no scenario where both cards excel simultaneously.