AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs AMD Radeon R5 M335 Comparison

# AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs AMD Radeon R5 M335

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 and AMD Radeon R5 M335 are two entry-level mobile graphics processors that end up nearly inseparable in raw performance despite vastly different internal designs. Across the two benchmark tests recorded, each card claims one victory, with the M335 taking the Geekbench OpenCL test and the M255 taking the Vulkan test. The average benchmark scores are 4,788 for the M255 and 4,752 for the M335, a mere 0.8% gap that places both GPUs at the 28th percentile of all GPUs. The data shows a statistical tie in overall compute capability, but the architectures and feature sets tell a more nuanced story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is won by the AMD Radeon R5 M335 with a score of 4,745 against the M255's 4,650. That represents a 2% deficit for the M255, which is a meaningful margin for two cards this closely matched. The M335's advantage in this workload likely stems from its higher pixel rate, which delivers 8.240 GPixel/s compared to the M255's 7.520 GPixel/s.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result decisively in favor of the AMD Radeon R5 M255. The M255 scores 4,925 while the M335 trails at 4,758, giving the M255 a 3.5% lead. This is the larger margin of the two head-to-head results, suggesting the M255's newer architecture handles the Vulkan API more efficiently. The M255's FP32 throughput of 721.9 GFLOPS, compared to the M335's 659.2 GFLOPS, provides a compute advantage that likely surfaces in this test.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the M255 sits 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4,844 average) and 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4,791 average) — though that RTX comparison is almost purely coincidental given the massive performance class difference. The M335 is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4,727 average) and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4,684 average). Both cards occupy the same performance tier, with the M255 holding a slim 0.8% edge in average score.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses the Exo chip on the older GCN 1.0 architecture. Both are manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply.

The M255 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The M335 is far more modest, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3M per mm². The M255 therefore has more than double the transistor budget, which it puts toward a wider memory interface and more compute units.

Memory configuration differs significantly. The M255 features a 128-bit bus with DDR3 memory running at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), producing 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M335 uses a 64-bit bus with DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding just 14.40 GB/s — less than half the bandwidth. Both cards have 2 GB of VRAM.

Compute resources favor the M255: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, against the M335's 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The M255's texture rate is 22.56 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s for the M335. However, the M335's pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s edges out the M255's 7.520 GPixel/s, a quirk of clock behavior since the M335 has no listed base or boost clocks while the M255 runs at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost.

API support reveals another generational gap. The M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M335 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M255 lists FP16 performance at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1 with FP32), while the M335 has no listed FP16 capability. The M335 has no power connectors and its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the M255 lists no power connector information at all.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins in OpenCL compute workloads, as demonstrated by its 2% lead in that benchmark. Its higher pixel rate suggests it may handle fill-rate-bound tasks, such as basic 2D operations or certain post-processing effects, more effectively. The M335 also has a smaller die and fewer transistors, which could translate to lower power draw in thermally constrained laptops, though no TDP figures are available to confirm this.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in Vulkan-based workloads, taking a 3.5% advantage in that test. Its newer GCN 3.0 architecture, combined with more than double the transistors and over twice the memory bandwidth (32.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s), makes it the better choice for memory-intensive tasks. The M255's higher shading unit count (384 versus 320) and superior FP32 throughput (721.9 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS) give it a clear compute advantage that Vulkan appears to exploit.

For gaming, the M255's wider memory bus and higher bandwidth are likely to matter more in modern titles that stream large textures. The M335's OpenCL edge may benefit certain productivity applications that rely on that API, such as older image processing or video encoding tools. The M255 also has the advantage of DirectX 12 (12_0) feature support, which could enable better performance in newer DX12 games, while the M335's 11_1 feature level is more limited.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has an average benchmark score of 4,788, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4,752. The M255 leads by 0.8%.

Q: How do these cards compare to the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX?

A: The M255 is 1.2% behind the GeForce 940MX (4,844 average score), while the M335 is not directly listed against the 940MX in its nearest rivals, but its average score of 4,752 places it in a similar range.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The M255 has a 128-bit memory bus with DDR3 at 1000 MHz, delivering 32.00 GB/s. The M335 has a 64-bit bus with DDR3 at 900 MHz, delivering 14.40 GB/s. The M255 offers more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX features?

A: The M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The M255's feature level is higher.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life production status. The M255 was released on October 11, 2014, and the M335 on October 20, 2015.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The M255 contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the M335 contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The M255 has more than double the transistors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M255 | AMD Radeon R5 M335 |

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

| Chip | Topaz | Exo |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 925 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 940 MHz | Not listed |

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

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.520 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.56 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 721.9 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

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

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | October 11, 2014 | October 20, 2015 |

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split verdict. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the superior choice for Vulkan-based applications and any workload that benefits from higher memory bandwidth, more shading units, and greater FP32 throughput. Its 3.5% Vulkan win, combined with double the memory bandwidth and a newer architecture, makes it the more future-proof option despite being the older product by release date.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins the OpenCL test by 2% and offers a higher pixel rate, which could benefit specific fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its smaller die and lower transistor count may also make it more efficient in power-constrained designs, though no TDP data is available to confirm this.

For most users, the M255 is the better pick. Its advantages in compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and DirectX feature level outweigh the M335's narrow OpenCL margin. The M335 remains a viable alternative only if a specific application relies heavily on OpenCL performance or if the system design benefits from its smaller footprint. In the end, both cards sit at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, firmly in entry-level territory, but the M255's architectural advantages make it the stronger recommendation from the data.