AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs AMD Radeon R5 M320 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD Radeon R5 M230 are both end-of-life integrated graphics solutions from the same Jet chip family, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process with identical 690 million transistors and a 56 mm² die size. The data shows that the M320 is the faster part, but the margin is narrow and the architectural similarities are extensive. The M320 achieves an average benchmark score of 4657, while the M230 scores 4577, placing both at the 27th percentile of all GPUs. This places them in the same performance tier, though the M320 holds a decisive edge in the single available head-to-head test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 against the AMD Radeon R5 M230’s 4577. That is a 10.4% advantage for the M320, a meaningful gap for two parts with otherwise identical core configurations. In this test, the M320’s higher clock speeds translate directly into a win, as both GPUs share the same 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the M320’s average score of 4657 places it within 0.6% of the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684) and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628). The M230, meanwhile, sits at 4577, which is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560). The M320 also shows a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262, a result not available for the M230, indicating additional compute headroom in that API.

The wins tally is 1 for the M320 and 0 for the M230 in head-to-head tests, but the interpretation requires nuance. The M320’s deltaPct of 10.4% in OpenCL is substantial enough to be noticed in real workloads, yet the M230’s lower absolute score does not place it in a dramatically different competitive bracket. Both parts hover near the same percentile rank, and their nearest rivals overlap — the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and GeForce GTX 970M appear in both lists, with the M320 trading leads of 0.8% and 0.6% respectively, while the M230 trails them by 0.9% and 1.1%. The M320 is consistently the stronger performer, but neither GPU escapes the lower-midrange tier.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using the Jet chip, and they share the same 28 nm process node from TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 690 million, and the die size is the same 56 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The memory subsystem is also largely the same: both use DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The shading unit count is 320 for both, with 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs.

The critical differences lie in clock speeds and memory capacity. The M320 lists a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz, while the M230’s base and boost clocks are not provided in the data. This clock advantage for the M320 explains its higher pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s versus the M230’s 4.880 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 17.10 GTexel/s against the M230’s 12.20 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance follows the same pattern: the M320 delivers 547.2 GFLOPS, while the M230 manages 390.4 GFLOPS.

Memory capacity is the other distinguishing factor. The M320 comes with 4 GB of DDR3, while the M230 has 2 GB. This does not affect bandwidth in the data, but it does influence how much data can be resident locally. Both parts share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. They also share the same PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and the same "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, indicating they are intended for laptops or other compact systems. The M320 was released on May 4, 2015, while the M230 came earlier on January 6, 2014, placing the M320 in the R5 M300 generation and the M230 in the R5 M200 generation, though both list "Gem System" as their generation family.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon R5 M320 as the superior choice for anyone deciding between these two. Its 10.4% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark is backed up by higher clock speeds, a higher pixel rate, a higher texture rate, and higher FP32 throughput. The M320 also offers double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, which could matter for workloads that need to store larger textures or datasets locally. The M320’s additional Vulkan score of 4262 — absent for the M230 — suggests broader compute utility, though no direct comparison exists for that test.

However, the M230 is not a poor performer in absolute terms. Its average score of 4577 is within 1% of the M320’s 4657, and both are pinned at the 27th percentile of all GPUs. The M230’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560 and Intel HD Graphics P530, with the M230 slightly ahead of both. For users constrained to the M230 — perhaps in an older system — the performance is serviceable for light duties, but the M320’s data-driven advantages make it the clear pick when both are available. The M320’s position relative to the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (0.0% delta) and GTX 970M (0.6% ahead) also gives it a slightly stronger competitive standing than the M230, which trails those same NVIDIA parts.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs, based strictly on the data:

• Generation: The M320 is in "Gem System (R5 M300)", while the M230 is in "Gem System (R5 M200)".
• Release Date: The M320 was released on May 4, 2015; the M230 on January 6, 2014.
• Base Clock: The M320 has a base clock of 780 MHz; the M230 has no listed base clock.
• Boost Clock: The M320 has a boost clock of 855 MHz; the M230 has no listed boost clock.
• Memory Size: The M320 has 4 GB; the M230 has 2 GB.
• Pixel Rate: The M320 is 6.840 GPixel/s; the M230 is 4.880 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The M320 is 17.10 GTexel/s; the M230 is 12.20 GTexel/s.
• FP32: The M320 is 547.2 GFLOPS; the M230 is 390.4 GFLOPS.
• Geekbench OpenCL Score: The M320 scores 5051; the M230 scores 4577.
• Geekbench Vulkan Score: The M320 has a score of 4262; the M230 has no Vulkan score listed.
• Average Benchmark Score: The M320 is 4657; the M230 is 4577.
• Nearest Rivals: The M320’s rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (0.0% delta), NVIDIA Quadro P400 (-0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (0.6%), and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (0.8%). The M230’s rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560 (0.2%), Intel HD Graphics P530 (0.4%), NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (-0.9%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (-1.1%).

All other fields — chip, architecture, process node, foundry, transistors, die size, transistor density, memory type, bus width, bandwidth, memory clock, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, TDP, slot width, bus interface, display outputs, APIs, production status, predecessor, and successor — are identical between the two.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has an average benchmark score of 4657, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577. The M320 is ahead by 80 points, a 1.7% difference.

Q: How much faster is the M320 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The M320 scores 5051 compared to the M230’s 4577, a delta of 10.4% in favor of the M320.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both use DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth and a 1000 MHz memory clock (2 Gbps effective). The only memory difference is capacity: 4 GB for the M320 versus 2 GB for the M230.

Q: What is the process node for both chips?

A: Both the M320 and M230 are built on a 28 nm process node at TSMC, with 690 million transistors and a 56 mm² die size.

Q: Which GPU has a Vulkan benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has no Vulkan score listed in the data.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M?

A: The M320 is 0.6% ahead of the GTX 970M (4628), while the M230 is 1.1% behind it. Both comparisons are based on average benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins in every measurable benchmark category available. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5051 is 10.4% higher, and its average score of 4657 is higher than the M230’s 4577. The M320 also has a Vulkan score of 4262, a result the M230 cannot match. In terms of raw throughput, the M320’s pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s and texture rate of 17.10 GTexel/s exceed the M230’s 4.880 GPixel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s, respectively. The FP32 compute of 547.2 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS further cements the M320’s advantage. The M320 also has 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, which gives it an edge in workloads that require larger working sets.

The AMD Radeon R5 M230, by contrast, has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its strengths are contextual rather than absolute: it occupies the same 27th percentile of all GPUs, and its average score of 4577 is close enough to the M320 that the performance gap is not transformative. The M230 is also a slightly earlier release (January 2014 versus May 2015), which may make it more common in older systems. For users with the M230, the data suggests it is adequate for basic tasks, but the M320 is the better choice for any application that pushes the GPU harder — particularly those that benefit from higher clock speeds, more memory, or Vulkan compute. The M320’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at parity and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 within 0.6%, while the M230’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 560 and Intel HD Graphics P530, both of which it edges out by less than half a percent. In short, the M320 is the part to pick for better compute and memory capacity; the M230 only wins by being the more dated, lower-spec option.