AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the decisive winner in this comparison. Its average benchmark score of 5,308 versus the AMD Radeon R5 M230's 4,577 represents a 16% overall advantage, and the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the GTX 980M ahead by a staggering 420.7%. The GTX 980M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile, a modest gap in percentile terms that understates the enormous performance chasm in raw compute.

The GTX 980M is for users who need a mobile GPU that can handle demanding workloads: its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, 256-bit bus, and 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth place it in a different performance class entirely. The R5 M230, by contrast, is a basic IGP-class part with 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus delivering 16.00 GB/s, a memory subsystem that is an order of magnitude slower. Anyone choosing between these two for gaming, GPU compute, or content creation should pick the GTX 980M without hesitation. The R5 M230 makes sense only for systems where power envelopes and thermal constraints demand the lightest possible graphics solution, as it is an integrated form factor with no power connectors at all.

Where Each One Wins

The data records only one head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and the GTX 980M wins it outright, scoring 23,832 to the R5 M230's 4,577. That 420.7% delta translates into roughly 5.2 times the OpenCL compute performance. For any application that leverages GPU compute, from rendering to data processing, the GTX 980M is the only viable choice.

The R5 M230's single benchmark score comes from the same Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is drastically lower. There is no benchmark in the database where the R5 M230 exceeds the GTX 980M. However, the R5 M230 is an IGP with a 28 nm process and a 56 mm² die, meaning it consumes far fewer resources in a laptop design. Its advantage, to the extent one exists, is in system integration simplicity, not performance. The GTX 980M is an MXM Module requiring a dedicated slot, whereas the R5 M230 is an integrated part with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The GTX 980M wins every measurable performance category in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The R5 M230 uses the Jet chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, for a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The GTX 980M has more than 7.5 times the transistor count.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The GTX 980M features 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. Pixel rate tells the story: 72.13 GPixel/s for the GTX 980M versus 4.880 GPixel/s for the R5 M230. Texture rate is 108.2 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s. Floating point performance is 3.462 TFLOPS for the GTX 980M versus 390.4 GFLOPS for the R5 M230, an 8.9 times difference.

Memory architecture is another chasm. The GTX 980M runs 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with a 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, and its memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The R5 M230 runs 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The GTX 980M's clock speeds are clearly specified: 1038 MHz base and 1127 MHz boost. The R5 M230 lists no base or boost clock in the database, only its memory clock.

API support differs as well. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are marked end-of-life and use TSMC as the foundry. The GTX 980M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, succeeded by GeForce 10 Mobile, while the R5 M230 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation, succeeded by Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 980M delivers 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 390.4 GFLOPS for the R5 M230, an 8.9 times advantage. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980M scores 23,832 versus 4,577, a 420.7% lead.

Q: How do memory capacities and bandwidth compare?

A: The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M230 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 980M offers 10 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life. The GTX 980M was released in October 2014 and succeeded by GeForce 10 Mobile. The R5 M230 was released in January 2014 and succeeded by Polaris Mobile.

Q: What are the API differences?

A: The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 980M has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 980M has 4.8 times the shading units.

Q: How does the GTX 980M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The GTX 980M's average score of 5,308 is 0.2% below the GeForce 930A (5,317), 0.3% below the GeForce 840M (5,322), 0.5% above the GeForce 940M (5,284), and 0.9% below the Radeon R7 M445 (5,358). These are all within roughly one percent, making the GTX 980M closely competitive with that cluster.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one shared benchmark between the GTX 980M and the R5 M230: Geekbench OpenCL. This single measurement is lopsided. The GTX 980M scores 23,832, while the R5 M230 scores 4,577. The delta is 420.7% in favor of the GTX 980M, meaning the NVIDIA part delivers over five times the OpenCL performance.

To contextualize that OpenCL result, consider the GTX 980M's other benchmark scores. In Passmark G3D it posts 7,338, with Passmark G2D at 490, Passmark GPU Compute at 2,816, Passmark DirectX 9 at 125, DirectX 11 at 57, DirectX 10 at 35, and DirectX 12 at 31. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 it scores 649, and in Geekbench Vulkan it scores 17,703. The R5 M230 has no recorded scores for any of these tests, so no direct comparison is possible, but the OpenCL gap is indicative of the overall performance hierarchy.

The GTX 980M's average benchmark score of 5,308 places it at the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are the GeForce 930A at 5,317 (0.2% higher), the GeForce 840M at 5,322 (0.3% higher), the GeForce 940M at 5,284 (0.5% lower), and the Radeon R7 M445 at 5,358 (0.9% higher). The GTX 980M is essentially tied with that group, all within a one percent band.

The R5 M230's average score of 4,577 places it at the 27th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Radeon RX 560 at 4,569 (0.2% higher), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4,560 (0.4% higher), the Quadro M3000M at 4,621 (0.9% higher), and the GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628 (1.1% higher). Again, the R5 M230 is tightly clustered with its nearest neighbors, but that cluster sits roughly 14% below the GTX 980M's cluster in absolute average score.

The wins tally is one to zero in favor of the GTX 980M. There is no benchmark category in which the R5 M230 records a win. The GTX 980M also carries architectural advantages that compound its benchmark lead: a 256-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, GDDR5 versus DDR3, and 64 ROPs versus 8. For applications sensitive to memory bandwidth or fill rate, the GTX 980M's lead is even more pronounced than the raw compute delta suggests. The GTX 980M is the clear choice for any workload where GPU performance matters, while the R5 M230 remains a basic integrated solution for light tasks.