AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 and NVIDIA GeForce 930M represent two competing approaches to entry-level mobile graphics from the 28 nm era, with the data showing a clear but narrow performance edge for the NVIDIA part in the single available benchmark. Both GPUs target the same IGP slot class, but their underlying architectures and specifications diverge significantly, leading to distinct behavioral profiles in compute workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce 930M holds a decisive advantage in the only head-to-head comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 930M scores 5046 against the R5 M230's 4577, a delta of -9.3% from the perspective of the AMD part. This means the NVIDIA GPU outperforms its rival by roughly 10% in raw compute throughput, making it the unequivocal winner for OpenCL-accelerated tasks such as general-purpose GPU computing, video encoding filters, and physics simulations that leverage this API.

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head dataset, so its strengths must be inferred from its architectural traits rather than direct scores. Its GCN 1.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA part lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. This gives AMD a slight edge in API compatibility for Vulkan workloads, potentially making it more robust in older or specialized applications that rely on earlier Vulkan revisions. However, this is a qualitative advantage—the benchmark data does not include a Vulkan test for the R5 M230 to confirm real-world gains.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each GPU provides additional context. The R5 M230's average score of 4577 places it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% above the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560), while sitting 0.9% below the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621) and 1.1% below the GTX 970M (4628). This clustering suggests the R5 M230 performs at a level equivalent to a mid-range desktop GPU from a different era, despite its mobile IGP positioning. The GeForce 930M, with an average score of 4388, sits 0.5% below the GT 645M (4411) but 0.7% above the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360) and 1.2% above the RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335) in this specific metric. Notably, the 930M's average score is lower than its OpenCL score because it also includes a Vulkan benchmark result of 3729, which drags down the aggregate.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for users prioritizing raw compute performance: the NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins the only direct comparison, posting a 5046 OpenCL score versus the R5 M230's 4577. For anyone running OpenCL-accelerated applications—whether that is video transcoding, scientific computing, or machine learning inference on mobile hardware—the 930M delivers roughly 10% more throughput, a meaningful margin at this performance tier.

However, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is not without merit for a specific subset of users. Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support and DirectX 12 (11_1) compliance could make it a better choice for legacy software or specialized drivers that require these exact API versions. The R5 M230 also exhibits a higher average benchmark score (4577) than the 930M's average (4388) when considering all available tests, though this is because the 930M's Vulkan result (3729) pulls its average down while the AMD part has no Vulkan score to penalize it. This implies that for mixed workloads or Vulkan-specific titles, the R5 M230 may actually feel faster in practice, despite losing the OpenCL head-to-head.

For gamers or users of mainstream productivity apps that rely on OpenCL, the GeForce 930M is the safer pick. For developers targeting Vulkan or users locked into older DirectX 11_1 feature levels, the R5 M230 offers broader API compatibility. The percentile rankings are nearly identical—27th for the AMD part versus 26th for NVIDIA—indicating that both sit at the same low end of the GPU performance distribution, but the 930M's higher peak score makes it the more capable part for compute-heavy tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 5046 against the AMD Radeon R5 M230's 4577, yielding a delta of -9.3% for the AMD part. This is the largest and only measurable performance gap in the dataset, and it reflects the underlying hardware differences: the 930M packs 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, versus 320 and 20 for the R5 M230, respectively. The NVIDIA chip also runs at a memory clock of 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) and a base/boost clock of 549 MHz, while the AMD part lists only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) with no base or boost clock specified.

The bandwidth figures tell an interesting story. The R5 M230 has a higher memory bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s (due to faster 2 Gbps effective memory) compared to the 930M's 12.80 GB/s. Yet the NVIDIA part still wins the compute benchmark, suggesting that its extra shading units and texture units compensate for the bandwidth deficit. The pixel rates are nearly identical—4.880 GPixel/s for AMD versus 4.392 GPixel/s for NVIDIA—but the texture rate favors NVIDIA at 13.18 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the 930M leads with 421.6 GFLOPS against 390.4 GFLOPS, a 8% advantage that aligns closely with the observed benchmark delta.

The nearest rival data for the GeForce 930M shows it beating the AMD FirePro W2100 by 2.2% (4388 vs 4295) and the RTX 4070 GDDR6 by 1.2% (4388 vs 4335), which contextualizes its performance as being competitive with much newer hardware in this specific synthetic test. The R5 M230's nearest rival data shows it edging out the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 0.4% (4577 vs 4560), placing it above typical integrated graphics solutions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has an average benchmark score of 4577, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M has an average of 4388. However, this is skewed because the 930M's average includes a Vulkan score of 3729, while the R5 M230 only has an OpenCL score.

Q: What is the performance difference in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 5046 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 9.3% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M230's 4577. This translates to roughly a 10% performance advantage for NVIDIA in this workload.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part has a higher DirectX feature level, but the NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version.

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

A: The R5 M230 is within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 560 and 0.4% above the Intel HD Graphics P530. The GeForce 930M is 0.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M and 0.7% above the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M has 384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 has 320. NVIDIA also has more texture mapping units (24 vs 20), but both have 8 ROPs.

Q: Does the AMD R5 M230 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the single head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins with a score of 5046 versus 4577 for the AMD part. The winsA field is 0 and winsB is 1.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Jet, part of the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce 930M uses the Maxwell architecture on a GM108S chip, part of the GeForce 900M generation. It is also built on a 28 nm TSMC process but packs 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm².

Memory configurations are similar on the surface—both have 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus—but the AMD part runs its memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA part runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) for 12.80 GB/s. This gives AMD a 25% bandwidth advantage, yet NVIDIA compensates with more compute units: 384 shading units and 24 TMUs versus 320 and 20 for AMD. Both have 8 ROPs, and the pixel rates are close (4.880 GPixel/s for AMD, 4.392 GPixel/s for NVIDIA), but NVIDIA's texture rate is higher at 13.18 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s.

The clock behavior differs notably. The GeForce 930M has a base clock of 549 MHz and a boost clock of 549 MHz—identical values suggesting a fixed clock with no boost headroom. The R5 M230 has no base or boost clock listed, indicating that its clocks are variable or dependent on the host system. The NVIDIA part also has a TDP of 33 W, while the AMD part has no TDP listed, and NVIDIA lists "None" for power connectors, implying it draws power solely from the motherboard.

In terms of API support, the AMD R5 M230 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GeForce 930M lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part has a higher DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0), but NVIDIA's Vulkan support is newer (1.4 vs 1.2.170). Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and have display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

The release timeline shows the AMD part launching on January 6, 2014, with the NVIDIA part following on March 12, 2015. The AMD GPU's predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile, while NVIDIA's predecessor is GeForce 800M and successor is GeForce 10 Mobile. Both are end-of-life products, with the AMD R5 M230 achieving a 27th percentile ranking against all GPUs and the GeForce 930M at the 26th percentile—placing them in essentially the same performance bracket overall.