AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs AMD Radeon R7 M340 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD, built for laptops and compact systems. The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between the two, and the data reveals a clear but modest performance hierarchy. This analysis breaks down the recorded measurements, architectural differences, and the implications for real-world usage based solely on the supplied facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this metric, the AMD Radeon R7 M340 scores 4932 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 points. The R7 M340 wins this matchup with a delta of 7.8%. This is a decisive but not overwhelming advantage. A 7.8% lead in a synthetic compute benchmark suggests that the R7 M340 is faster in raw parallel processing, but the gap is narrow enough that real-world application differences could vary depending on driver optimization and workload characteristics.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the R7 M340 averages 5063 points across its recorded tests (which include both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan). The R5 M230 averages 4577 points, based solely on its single OpenCL result. The difference in average scores is 486 points, or roughly 10.6% higher for the R7 M340. This reinforces the head-to-head result, showing that the R7 M340 maintains a consistent lead across its available benchmark suite.

The percentile rankings place the R7 M340 at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile. This three-percentile gap is small, indicating that both chips occupy a similar, low-to-mid tier of performance. The R7 M340 is not dramatically faster in the broader context of all GPUs, but it is measurably ahead of the R5 M230.

Notably, the R7 M340’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R7 240 with an identical average score of 5063 and a 0% delta, the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5034 (0.6% slower), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5018 (0.9% slower), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998 (1.3% slower). This places the R7 M340 in a tight cluster where performance differences are within a couple of percentage points. The R5 M230, by contrast, has rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (0.2% faster), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (0.4% faster), the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (0.9% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (1.1% faster). The R5 M230 is surrounded by a mix of integrated and discrete solutions, and its performance is essentially on par with those listed, with deltas all under 1.2%.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M340 wins outright in the only direct benchmark comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test. This indicates that for compute-oriented tasks such as OpenCL-accelerated image processing, video encoding filters, or general GPU compute workloads, the R7 M340 holds a clear edge. The 7.8% delta is not huge, but it is consistent with the higher clock speeds and newer architecture that the R7 M340 employs, as detailed in the specification differences.

The R5 M230 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, this does not mean it is without merit. Its performance is close enough to the R7 M340 that in lightly threaded or memory-bandwidth-limited scenarios, the difference may be imperceptible. The R5 M230 also shares the same memory configuration, with 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. This means that for tasks that are not compute-heavy, such as basic 2D desktop rendering or video playback, both chips would perform similarly, and the R5 M230’s lower power draw (though not explicitly listed, its integrated-class design suggests lower consumption) could make it preferable in thermally constrained laptops.

The database shows the R7 M340 has a Vulkan score of 5193, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 4932. This suggests that the R7 M340 benefits from Vulkan’s lower overhead and could be more competitive in modern games or applications that use Vulkan. The R5 M230 lacks a recorded Vulkan score, so its Vulkan performance is unknown, but its older GCN 1.0 architecture and lower clocks would likely place it below the R7 M340 in that API as well.

Architecture Differences

The most significant difference between these two GPUs lies in their architecture generations. The R7 M340 is based on GCN 3.0, while the R5 M230 uses GCN 1.0. This is a substantial generational leap. GCN 3.0 introduced architectural refinements that improve instruction scheduling, power efficiency, and feature support compared to the original GCN 1.0 design. The chip for the R7 M340 is codenamed “Meso,” while the R5 M230 uses the “Jet” chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC, but the transistor counts differ dramatically. The R7 M340 packs 1,550 million transistors on a die size of 125 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The R5 M230 has only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The transistor density is nearly identical, which makes sense given the same process node, but the R7 M340 is a much larger and more complex chip.

The R7 M340’s larger die and higher transistor count do not translate into more execution units, as both GPUs have 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. Instead, the extra transistors in the R7 M340 are likely used for improved geometry processing, better compression techniques, and more robust command processing, which are hallmarks of the GCN 3.0 architecture. The R5 M230’s smaller die, by contrast, is a simpler design with fewer features.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The R7 M340 has a base clock of 943 MHz and a boost clock of 1021 MHz. The R5 M230 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, but its pixel rate and texture rate are substantially lower. The R7 M340 achieves a pixel rate of 8.168 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.42 GTexel/s. The R5 M230 manages only 4.880 GPixel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s, respectively. This is a major discrepancy. The R7 M340’s pixel rate is 67% higher, and its texture rate is 67% higher, which directly reflects its higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency. The FP32 compute performance tells the same story: the R7 M340 delivers 653.4 GFLOPS, while the R5 M230 delivers 390.4 GFLOPS. The R7 M340 is 67% faster in raw floating-point throughput.

Specification Differences

Several key specifications differ between the two GPUs, beyond the architecture and clocks already mentioned. The R7 M340 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the R7 M340 can fully utilize DirectX 12’s advanced features, such as bindless resources and improved multithreading, whereas the R5 M230 is limited to the older 11_1 feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API compatibility is otherwise similar.

The R7 M340 also has a recorded FP16 performance of 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), meaning it processes half-precision floats at the same rate as FP32. The R5 M230 has no recorded FP16 performance, indicating that its FP16 support may be either absent or not measured. This could matter for applications that use half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or image processing filters.

The bus interface is identical for both: PCIe 3.0 x8. The memory subsystem is also the same on paper: 2 GB of DDR3, a 64-bit bus, and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. However, the effective memory clock is listed identically at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for both, so the memory performance is essentially equal. The R7 M340’s advantage in compute comes purely from its GPU cores and clocks, not from memory bandwidth.

The R5 M230 is classified as an “IGP” in its slot width field, indicating it is an integrated graphics processor, likely soldered to the motherboard or part of an APU package. The R7 M340 does not have a slot width field, but its higher performance and discrete-class design suggest it may be a separate chip. The R5 M230’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” which is typical for integrated mobile GPUs. The R7 M340 has no display output information recorded.

The release dates differ as well. The R5 M230 was released on January 6, 2014, while the R7 M340 followed on May 4, 2015. This 16-month gap explains the architectural difference: the R7 M340 benefits from a newer generation that was introduced later. Both have the same predecessor (“Solar System”) and successor (“Polaris Mobile”), but the R7 M340 is the more recent product.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M340 scores 4932 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 points. The R7 M340 wins with a 7.8% delta.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth and a 1000 MHz memory clock (2 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the architectural generation difference?

A: The R7 M340 uses GCN 3.0 with the Meso chip, while the R5 M230 uses GCN 1.0 with the Jet chip. Both are made on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Q: How do their pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The R7 M340 has a pixel rate of 8.168 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.42 GTexel/s. The R5 M230 has a pixel rate of 4.880 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 12.20 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU has better DirectX 12 support?

A: The R7 M340 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), which is a higher feature level than the R5 M230’s DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The R7 M340 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the R5 M230 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon R7 M340 is the superior GPU in every measurable performance category. It wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, has a higher average benchmark score, a higher percentile ranking, and significantly better pixel, texture, and FP32 rates. The R7 M340 also supports a newer DirectX 12 feature level and a more advanced architecture (GCN 3.0 vs GCN 1.0). Its 653.4 GFLOPS FP32 performance is 67% higher than the R5 M230’s 390.4 GFLOPS, which is a substantial gap for compute-heavy workloads.

The R5 M230, however, is not a poor performer in absolute terms. Its average score of 4577 places it near the R7 M340’s closest rivals, and it is within 1.1% of several well-known GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M and the AMD Radeon RX 560. For users who only need basic graphics acceleration, light gaming, or video playback, the R5 M230 could suffice, especially given its identical memory bandwidth and the fact that the performance delta in many real-world tasks might be smaller than the synthetic benchmarks suggest.

The choice comes down to the user’s workload. For anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan-based applications, or who plans to use DirectX 12 games, the R7 M340 is the clear pick. Its higher compute throughput and modern architecture provide a headroom that the R5 M230 lacks. For purely casual use, the R5 M230 is adequate, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the R7 M340. The verdict is straightforward: the R7 M340 is the better product, and the R5 M230 is a lesser alternative from an older generation.