AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL compute test. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M produced a score of 5,604 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 managed 4,577 points. That is a 22.4% advantage for the NVIDIA part, which is a substantial gap in raw compute throughput. For context, this is not a close contest; the delta is large enough to be clearly visible in almost any workload that scales with shader count or memory bandwidth.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 760M's average score across all recorded tests is 5,236. The R5 M230's average is 4,577, which is its only recorded score. That places the NVIDIA part roughly 14.4% higher on average, even when accounting for the fact that the NVIDIA GPU has two benchmark entries (OpenCL and Vulkan) versus the AMD's single OpenCL result. The Vulkan score for the GTX 760M is 4,868, which is lower than its OpenCL score but still above the R5 M230's OpenCL result.

The nearest rival data helps contextualize these numbers. The GTX 760M sits in a tight cluster: it is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5,211), 0.9% behind the GeForce 940M (5,284), 1.3% behind the GTX 980M (5,308), and 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5,161). This tells you that the GTX 760M is a mid-pack mobile GPU, performing essentially on par with several other laptop-class parts from its era. The R5 M230, by contrast, is in a slightly lower tier: it is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4,569), 0.4% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4,560), 0.9% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4,621), and 1.1% behind the GTX 970M (4,628).

In percentile terms, the GTX 760M is in the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R5 M230 is in the 27th. That is a modest difference, but it aligns with the OpenCL margin. The head-to-head record is 1 win for NVIDIA, 0 wins for AMD. There is no benchmark where the R5 M230 manages to pull ahead, so the story here is consistent: the GTX 760M is the faster part in every measured metric.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is the stronger GPU for compute-oriented tasks, and its 22.4% OpenCL lead over the R5 M230 is the single most important number in this comparison. If you are choosing between these two for a laptop or upgrade path, the GTX 760M is the pick for anyone who expects to run GPU-accelerated applications, whether that is OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, or even just a more responsive desktop experience in compositors that offload work to the GPU.

The R5 M230 is not without merit, but its merits are not in raw performance. It has a lower transistor count and a smaller die, which suggests it is a more power-efficient part in terms of silicon area, though the database does not record a TDP for the AMD chip. The GTX 760M is rated at 55 W, so it does consume more power. If battery life is your absolute priority and you never touch GPU-heavy workloads, the R5 M230 could be acceptable, but the performance trade-off is severe.

For gaming, the picture is less favorable for the R5 M230. The GTX 760M's higher pixel rate (11.50 GPixel/s versus 4.880 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.02 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s) mean it can push more geometry and fill more pixels per frame. The R5 M230's 8 ROPs and 20 TMUs are half or less of the NVIDIA part's 16 ROPs and 64 TMUs. In practice, this means the GTX 760M will handle higher resolutions and more detailed textures without dropping frames, while the R5 M230 will struggle with anything beyond low settings in modern titles.

The GTX 760M also has a memory bandwidth advantage that is massive: 64.13 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s. That is a 4x difference, and memory bandwidth is often the bottleneck in integrated and low-end discrete GPUs. The R5 M230 uses DDR3 memory at 2 Gbps effective, while the GTX 760M uses GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective. The bus width difference (128-bit versus 64-bit) compounds this, so the NVIDIA part has more than enough bandwidth to feed its higher shader count.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760M wins in every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is mostly about degrees of advantage. The clearest win is in OpenCL compute, where it is 22.4% ahead. This matters for applications like video encoding, image processing, or any tool that can offload math to the GPU. The GTX 760M's 768 shading units versus the R5 M230's 320 is a 2.4x raw shader advantage, and its FP32 throughput of 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS is nearly 3x higher. Any workload that is shader-bound will see a massive improvement on the NVIDIA side.

The GTX 760M also wins decisively in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its pixel rate of 11.50 GPixel/s is 2.36x higher than the R5 M230's 4.880 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 46.02 GTexel/s is 3.77x higher than 12.20 GTexel/s. For games that rely on heavy texture sampling or high-resolution rendering, this difference is the difference between playable and slideshow.

The R5 M230's only potential advantage is its lower power draw, but the database does not list a TDP for it. Since the GTX 760M is rated at 55 W and the R5 M230 is an IGP-class part, it is reasonable to assume the AMD chip runs cooler and draws less power, but that is not a measured fact in the database. What is fact is that the R5 M230 has a smaller die (56 mm² versus 221 mm²) and fewer transistors (690 million versus 2,540 million), which implies lower production cost and potentially lower power leakage, but neither of those is a performance win.

In terms of API support, the R5 M230 has a slight edge in DirectX version, supporting 12 (11_1) versus the GTX 760M's 12 (11_0). That could matter for very new games that require a specific DirectX 11_1 feature set, but in practice the performance gap is so large that the GTX 760M will still run those games faster, just possibly with a feature disabled. Vulkan support is nearly identical (1.2.175 for NVIDIA, 1.2.170 for AMD), and OpenGL is the same at 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5,604 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4,577. That is a 22.4% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the AMD R5 M230 win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head record is 1 win for the GTX 760M and 0 wins for the R5 M230. The only shared benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and NVIDIA wins that.

Q: How does the GTX 760M compare to its closest rivals?

A: It is 0.5% ahead of the Quadro 4000M, 0.9% behind the GeForce 940M, 1.3% behind the GTX 980M, and 1.5% ahead of the Radeon R7 M260X. Its average score is 5,236.

Q: What is the average score of the R5 M230?

A: The R5 M230 has one recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL at 4,577, which is also its average score. It is 0.2% ahead of the RX 560 and 0.4% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P530.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 760M has 64.13 GB/s bandwidth with GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The R5 M230 has 16.00 GB/s with DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The NVIDIA part has 4x the bandwidth.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The GTX 760M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The AMD part has a higher feature level, but both are DirectX 12 capable.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK106S chip. AMD's Radeon R5 M230 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts are vastly different. The GTX 760M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The R5 M230 has only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3M per mm². Despite the AMD chip having a higher density, it has far fewer total resources, which explains its lower performance.

The memory subsystems are completely different. The GTX 760M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M230 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with only 16.00 GB/s. This is a fundamental architectural choice: GDDR5 provides much higher bandwidth-per-pin, which is critical for GPU workloads that need to stream textures and geometry.

The compute resources also diverge sharply. The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 2.4x the shaders, 3.2x the TMUs, and 2x the ROPs. This translates directly to the pixel rate (11.50 GPixel/s versus 4.880 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.02 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s) differences.

The bus interface differs as well. The GTX 760M connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R5 M230 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. That halves the available host bandwidth for the AMD part, which can matter when transferring data between system memory and VRAM, though both parts have limited VRAM anyway.

In terms of form factor, the GTX 760M is an MXM Module, which means it is a replaceable mobile graphics card. The R5 M230 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), meaning it is typically soldered onto the motherboard or built into the APU. This has practical implications for upgradability, though the database does not list upgrade paths.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ based on the recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M | AMD Radeon R5 M230 |

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

| Chip | GK106S | Jet |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 700M | Gem System (R5 M200) |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 628 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 719 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.13 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 320 |

| TMUs | 64 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.50 GPixel/s | 4.880 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.02 GTexel/s | 12.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,104.4 GFLOPS | 390.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2013-05-29 | 2014-01-06 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 800M | Polaris Mobile |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 5,604 | 4,577 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 4,868 | Not recorded |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5,236 | 4,577 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 31 | 27 |

The key takeaways are the memory bandwidth gap (64.13 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s), the shading unit count (768 versus 320), and the FP32 throughput (1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS). These three numbers explain almost all of the performance difference between the two parts. The R5 M230 does have a slightly higher DirectX feature level and a smaller die, but neither compensates for the 22.4% OpenCL deficit and the massive raw compute disadvantage.