AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs AMD Radeon R5 M255 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 and AMD Radeon R5 M230 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the Gem System (R5 M200) generation, but they are built on fundamentally different underlying hardware. The M255 leverages a newer architecture and a significantly larger chip, while the M230 is a more modest, power-efficient part. Benchmark data indicates the M255 holds a slight but consistent performance edge, though both cards sit in the low end of the GPU performance spectrum, with the M255 ranking in the 28th percentile of all GPUs and the M230 in the 27th.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a narrow victory for the AMD Radeon R5 M255. In this test, the M255 scores 4650 points, while the M230 scores 4577 points, giving the M255 a 1.6% performance advantage. This is a slim margin, indicating that in real-world compute tasks, the two cards would feel nearly identical to the end user. The M255's lead is consistent with its higher specification sheet, but the delta is small enough that it would not be a deciding factor for most workloads.

Looking at the broader context of their respective peer groups, both cards are clustered with very different competitors, which highlights their distinct performance envelopes. The M255's average benchmark score of 4788 places it within a tight race involving the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (avg score 4791, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (avg score 4752, delta 0.8%), the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (avg score 4844, delta -1.2%), and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (avg score 4727, delta 1.3%). The M255 is effectively in a statistical dead heat with these parts, with deltas of around 1% or less.

The M230's average benchmark score of 4577 places it alongside a different set of rivals, including the AMD Radeon RX 560 (avg score 4569, delta 0.2%), the Intel HD Graphics P530 (avg score 4560, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (avg score 4621, delta -0.9%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (avg score 4628, delta -1.1%). Again, the deltas here are all under 1.2%, showing that the M230 is also in a very tight performance cluster. The key takeaway is that while the M255 is faster than the M230 by 1.6% in the direct head-to-head, the M255's absolute performance level is comparable to a much higher-tier discrete GPU like the RTX 3080 12 GB (at least in this specific synthetic benchmark), whereas the M230's level is closer to that of an integrated graphics solution like the Intel HD Graphics P530.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is faster, scoring 4650 points compared to 4577 points for the AMD Radeon R5 M230. This represents a 1.6% performance advantage for the M255.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The M255's average score of 4788 puts it within 1.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, AMD Radeon R5 M335, NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, and AMD Radeon R8 M445DX. The M230's average score of 4577 puts it within 1.1% of the AMD Radeon RX 560, Intel HD Graphics P530, NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The M255's support for the 12_0 feature level is a more modern implementation.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a 128-bit memory bus and a bandwidth of 32.00 GB/s. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has a 64-bit memory bus, which halves the bandwidth to 16.00 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon R5 M255 and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 have a production status of "End-of-life." Their successor is listed as Polaris Mobile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a transistor count of 1,550 million, which is more than double the 690 million transistors found in the AMD Radeon R5 M230.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins the only direct comparison, so it is the clear choice for any compute-oriented task measured by Geekbench OpenCL. Its 1.6% lead in that test is the sole objective performance victory.

However, the M230's performance profile is not without merit. Its average score of 4577 is competitive with the AMD Radeon RX 560 and Intel HD Graphics P530, which suggests that for basic 2D desktop acceleration, video playback, and very light productivity tasks, it performs at a level comparable to those parts. The M230 is also designated as an "IGP" (Integrated Graphics Processor), meaning it is intended to be integrated into a portable device. This suggests it is designed for low-power, space-constrained applications where the M255's larger chip might not be suitable. In that specific use case—an ultra-thin or low-power laptop—the M230 is the more appropriate solution.

The M255's wins are more about headroom. Its higher pixel rate of 7.520 GPixel/s versus the M230's 4.880 GPixel/s, and its higher texture rate of 22.56 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s, indicate that it has more raw fill-rate capacity. This means that in games or applications that are not purely compute-bound but rely on pixel and texture throughput, the M255 would hold a more significant advantage than the 1.6% OpenCL score suggests. For any user planning to do light gaming, the M255 is the better option.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs show significant differences in almost every core area. The most glaring difference is in the memory subsystem. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a 128-bit memory bus, providing a bandwidth of 32.00 GB/s. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has a 64-bit bus, providing only 16.00 GB/s. This is a 100% difference in memory bandwidth and will heavily impact performance in memory-intensive tasks.

The compute units also differ. The M255 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 ROPs. The M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This gives the M255 a 20% advantage in shading units and TMUs. The clock speeds also differ, with the M255 having a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 940 MHz, while the M230 does not have base or boost clocks listed in the data. Finally, the M255 is listed with a "PCIe 3.0 x8" bus interface, and the M230 also lists "PCIe 3.0 x8," but the M230's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the M255's display outputs are not specified.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is based on GCN 3.0 and uses the "Topaz" chip. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 is based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture and uses the "Jet" chip. This architectural gap explains the differences in their feature sets and efficiency.

The physical size of the chips also varies greatly. The M255's Topaz chip is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC and has a die size of 125 mm², housing 1,550 million transistors. The M230's Jet chip is also on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but its die is only 56 mm² and contains 690 million transistors. The transistor density is nearly identical (12.4M / mm² for the M255 and 12.3M / mm² for the M230), but the M255's larger die allows for significantly more hardware.

The memory technology is the same (DDR3 at 1000 MHz, 2 Gbps effective), but the M255's wider bus doubles its bandwidth. In terms of API support, both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The key difference is in DirectX support: the M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M230 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). The M255 also has a listed FP16 performance of 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), while no FP16 figure is available for the M230.

The Verdict

The data is straightforward. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the more capable GPU. It wins the only direct benchmark, has double the memory bandwidth (32.00 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s), a larger and more modern architecture (GCN 3.0 vs GCN 1.0), more shading units (384 vs 320), and a higher pixel rate (7.520 GPixel/s vs 4.880 GPixel/s). Its compute performance in FP32 is also nearly double, at 721.9 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS. For any user who has a choice between the two and needs the best possible performance, the M255 is the only logical pick.

The AMD Radeon R5 M230, however, serves a different purpose. Its designation as an "IGP" and its much smaller 56 mm² die suggest it is meant for highly integrated, low-power devices where the M255's larger 125 mm² chip would be too large or power-hungry. Its performance, while lower, is still in the same ballpark as the M255 in the OpenCL test (a 1.6% difference). For a user whose primary concern is a compact, efficient system for basic tasks, the M230 is a perfectly adequate solution. In short: pick the M255 for performance, pick the M230 for integration and efficiency.