AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs AMD Radeon R5 M330 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 and AMD Radeon R5 M230 are both end-of-life mobile integrated graphics parts from AMD’s Gem System generation, sharing the same GCN 1.0 architecture, 28 nm TSMC process, 690 million transistors, and a 56 mm² die size. Despite their similarities, benchmark data shows a clear performance split between the two, with the older M230 taking the lead in the one available head-to-head test. This analysis relies strictly on the provided benchmark scores, architectural specs, and nearest-rival comparisons to determine where each chip stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it decisively favors the AMD Radeon R5 M230. The M230 scores 4577 points, while the M330 scores 4302 points, a delta of -6% for the M330. That places the M330 behind by roughly 275 points, which is a meaningful gap for two GPUs with identical core counts and memory configurations. The M230’s victory here is not marginal; it represents a consistent advantage in compute workloads, likely stemming from higher memory clock speeds.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The M330’s average benchmark score is 4170, which sits between the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151, +0.4% for the M330) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, -0.5% for the M330). The M330 also trails the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, +1.9% for the M330) and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241, -1.7% for the M330). These deltas are all within a narrow band, indicating that the M330’s performance is clustered tightly around mid-range mobile GPUs from several generations ago.

The M230, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 4577, which is 6% higher than the M330’s average. Its nearest rivals show a similar pattern: it edges out the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, +0.2% for the M230) and the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, +0.4% for the M230), while falling slightly behind the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, -0.9% for the M230) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, -1.1% for the M230). Notably, the M230’s average score exceeds that of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which is a much more modern part, suggesting that the M230 punches above its weight class in synthetic compute tests.

The head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL result aligns with the average scores: the M230 wins the only direct comparison, and its overall average is higher. The M330 does not win any benchmark tests in the provided data, while the M230 wins one. That single win is the most important number here, as it directly compares the two cards under identical conditions.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is the clear winner in compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4577 beats the M330’s 4302 by 6%, and its average benchmark score of 4577 is likewise higher. If you are looking for raw OpenCL throughput—useful for general-purpose GPU compute tasks, some productivity applications, and older game titles that leverage compute shaders—the M230 is the better choice. The M230 also holds a 27th percentile ranking among all GPUs, versus 25th for the M330, meaning it outperforms a slightly larger share of the overall GPU population.

The M330, on the other hand, does not win any benchmark tests in the provided data. However, it is not without merit. Its average score of 4170 places it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and only 1.7% behind the Quadro K3000M, which are professional mobile GPUs. The M330’s closest rival is the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which it trails by a mere 0.5%—a negligible difference in real-world terms. This suggests the M330 is competitive with a wide range of older mid-range mobile GPUs, even if it cannot match the M230’s performance.

The M330 also has a higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s versus 4.880 GPixel/s for the M230) and a higher texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s), which are metrics tied to its higher clock speeds. These figures indicate that in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as early DirectX 11 games running at low resolutions, the M330 could potentially close the gap or even pull ahead, despite losing the compute-focused OpenCL test. The data does not include a gaming benchmark, so this remains speculative, but the architectural numbers support that possibility.

For users prioritizing compute workloads, the M230 is the winner. For users who might value balanced fill-rate performance in older games, the M330’s higher pixel and texture rates are the only advantages it shows.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture, use the same 28 nm TSMC process, and pack 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 12.3M per mm². They share the same shading unit count (320), TMU count (20), and ROP count (8). Memory configurations are also identical: 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with no RT cores or tensor cores on either.

The key architectural differences come down to clocks and memory timing. The M330 has a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, while the M230 does not list base or boost clocks in the data. Instead, the M230’s memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), whereas the M330’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This 100 MHz memory clock advantage for the M230 translates into a higher memory bandwidth: 16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s for the M330. That 1.60 GB/s difference is modest but can influence bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The clock speed disparity drives most other differences. The M330’s higher GPU clocks yield a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s, both substantially higher than the M230’s 4.880 GPixel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance follows the same pattern: the M330 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS, while the M230 delivers 390.4 GFLOPS. This is a 68% difference in raw floating-point throughput, which is surprising given the M230’s higher OpenCL score—it suggests that the M230’s memory bandwidth advantage compensates for lower compute peaks in the actual benchmark.

The TDP for the M330 is listed as 18 W, while the M230’s TDP is not provided. Both are integrated graphics parts (IGP) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, and both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The M330 has no power connectors, and the M230 does not list any. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API feature sets are identical.

The release dates differ: the M230 launched on 2014-01-06, while the M330 launched on 2015-05-04. Both are end-of-life, and both share the same predecessor (Solar System) and successor (Polaris Mobile). The chip codenames differ—Exo for the M330 and Jet for the M230—but the underlying silicon is essentially the same, just with different clock and memory configurations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has an average benchmark score of 4577, which is higher than the M330’s average of 4170. The M230 also holds a 27th percentile ranking among all GPUs, versus 25th for the M330.

Q: What is the exact score difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The M230 scores 4577, and the M330 scores 4302. The delta is -6% for the M330, meaning the M230 outperforms it by that margin.

Q: How does the M330 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti?

A: The M330’s average score is 4170, while the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti’s average is 4193, giving a delta of -0.5% for the M330. They are effectively tied in performance.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. However, the M230’s memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) providing 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the M330’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) providing 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which card has higher pixel and texture rates?

A: The M330 has a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s. The M230 has a pixel rate of 4.880 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 12.20 GTexel/s.

Q: Are the APIs supported the same on both?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. There is no difference in API feature support.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is the better performer. It wins the only head-to-head test (Geekbench OpenCL, 4577 vs 4302), has a higher average benchmark score (4577 vs 4170), and ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution (27th vs 25th). If you are choosing between these two for compute tasks, the M230 is the clear pick.

The M330’s advantages are purely architectural on paper: higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and significantly higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS vs 390.4 GFLOPS). These numbers suggest that in fill-rate-bound or pure shader-bound workloads, the M330 could be faster, but the only benchmark we have says otherwise. The M230’s higher memory bandwidth (16.00 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s) likely offsets the M330’s compute advantage in the OpenCL test.

For real-world use in laptops, both are end-of-life integrated parts with 2 GB DDR3 memory, so neither will handle modern games or demanding workloads. The M230’s benchmark lead is modest but consistent, and its higher memory clock gives it a tangible edge. The M330’s higher core clocks are not reflected in the benchmark results, so they should not be overvalued.

The data indicates that the M230 is the safer choice for anyone who needs the better Geekbench OpenCL score. The M330 is not without merit—its fill-rate numbers are superior—but without a win in any benchmark, it is hard to recommend over the M230. If you must pick one, take the M230.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M330 | AMD Radeon R5 M230 |

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

| Chip | Exo | Jet |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M300) | Gem System (R5 M200) |

| Base Clock | 955 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 4.880 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 12.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 390.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 18 W | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2014-01-06 |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 4302 | 4577 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 4170 | 4577 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 25 | 27 |

| Wins (Head-to-Head) | 0 | 1 |

All other specifications—process node (28 nm), transistors (690 million), die size (56 mm²), shading units (320), TMUs (20), ROPs (8), memory size (2 GB), memory type (DDR3), bus width (64 bit), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), slot width (IGP), display outputs, and API support—are identical between the two.