AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs AMD Radeon R5 M430 Comparison

The benchmark data splits these two legacy mobile GPUs almost exactly down the middle: the AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins the OpenCL workload by a clear margin, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 edges ahead in Vulkan. With one win each and average scores separated by just 4.6% (5018 vs 4788), neither card dominates outright. The M430 is the safer pick for compute-oriented OpenCL tasks and holds a 30th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, while the M255’s slightly higher Vulkan score and stronger architectural foundation make it the better choice for newer API workloads — despite its lower overall percentile of 28.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon R5 M430 if your priority is raw OpenCL compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5152 beats the M255’s 4650 by 10.8%, a substantial lead for any GPU in this class. The M430 also posts a higher average benchmark score of 5018 against the M255’s 4788, and it sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs compared to the M255’s 28th. For users running legacy OpenCL applications or general-purpose compute workloads, the M430 is the data-backed winner.

Pick the AMD Radeon R5 M255 if you care about Vulkan performance or modern API support. It scores 4925 in Geekbench Vulkan, edging out the M430’s 4884 by 0.8%. More importantly, the M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) while the M430 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) — a meaningful feature gap for games or applications built on the full DirectX 12 feature set. The M255 also carries a newer architecture (GCN 3.0 vs GCN 1.0), which suggests better long-term driver optimization potential despite its lower average score.

The verdict is nuanced: the M430 wins the compute battle decisively, but the M255 wins the compatibility war. If you must pick one for a mixed workload, the M430’s larger performance lead in OpenCL (10.8%) outweighs the M255’s marginal Vulkan advantage (0.8%). However, for any modern DirectX 12 workload, the M255’s 12_0 support is a hard requirement that the M430 cannot meet.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of the same Gem System family, and the architectural gap is significant. The M430 uses the Jet chip built on GCN 1.0, while the M255 uses the Topaz chip built on GCN 3.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts tell different stories: the M255 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, versus the M430’s 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. That is more than double the transistor count and over twice the die area for the M255.

The M255 also has more execution resources: 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units compared to the M430’s 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. Both share 8 ROPs, but the M255’s extra shading units and TMUs translate directly into higher theoretical throughput — its FP32 compute is 721.9 GFLOPS versus the M430’s 547.2 GFLOPS, a 31.9% advantage. The M255 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (721.9 GFLOPS), while the M430 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The M430 uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB DDR3 and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M255 uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB DDR3 and 32.00 GB/s bandwidth — exactly double the bus width and bandwidth. Clock speeds favor the M255 as well: its base clock is 925 MHz and boost is 940 MHz, versus the M430’s 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. Both run memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The M255’s higher clocks, more transistors, and wider memory bus make it the technically superior part on paper; the M430 counters with double the VRAM capacity.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results present a clear split. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M430 scores 5152 against the M255’s 4650, a 10.8% victory for the older card. This is the largest delta between the two and drives the M430’s higher average score of 5018. In Geekbench Vulkan, the M255 scores 4925 against the M430’s 4884, a narrow 0.8% win for the newer architecture. The Vulkan result is close enough to be within normal run-to-run variance, but the OpenCL gap is substantial.

Looking at the rivals list provides context. The M430’s OpenCL lead is consistent with its nearest competitors: it sits just 0.3% below the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034) and 0.4% above the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). The M255, by contrast, sits 0.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791) in average score — a bizarre pairing that highlights how close the M255’s average is to that flagship card, purely on this benchmark metric. The M255 also trails the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844) by 1.2% and beats the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752) by 0.8%.

The benchmark data suggests that the M430’s OpenCL dominance is real and repeatable, while the M255’s Vulkan edge is marginal. In a head-to-head comparison, the M430 wins one test by double digits and loses the other by less than a percentage point. That asymmetry favors the M430 in overall compute value, even though the M255 has superior hardware specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M430, with an average score of 5018 versus the M255’s 4788, a difference of 4.6%.

Q: How much faster is the M430 in OpenCL?

A: The M430 scores 5152 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 10.8% higher than the M255’s 4650.

Q: Does the M255 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the M255 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 4925, beating the M430’s 4884 by 0.8%.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The M255, with a 128-bit bus and 32.00 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the M430’s 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M430 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has more VRAM?

A: The M430 has 4 GB of DDR3, double the M255’s 2 GB of DDR3.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins in scenarios that favor raw OpenCL compute and memory capacity. Its 10.8% OpenCL lead is the single biggest performance gap between the two, making it the obvious choice for OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, or legacy compute tasks. The 4 GB VRAM versus 2 GB also gives it an edge in workloads that require larger framebuffers or texture sets, even though its bandwidth is halved. For users running older applications that rely on OpenCL and need more memory headroom, the M430 is the clear winner.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in modern API scenarios and theoretical throughput. Its DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a definitive advantage over the M430’s 11_1, meaning any game or application that requires the full DirectX 12 feature set will simply not run properly on the M430. The M255’s higher FP32 compute (721.9 GFLOPS vs 547.2 GFLOPS) and doubled memory bandwidth (32.00 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s) give it more headroom for memory-intensive tasks, even if its Vulkan benchmark win is narrow. Its 0.8% Vulkan victory, combined with 1:1 FP16 support, makes it the better choice for newer workloads that can leverage these features.

In practical terms: the M430 is the better all-rounder for older software and compute-heavy tasks, while the M255 is the safer bet for forward-looking compatibility. The M255’s 384 shading units and 24 TMUs versus the M430’s 320 and 20, respectively, mean it should scale better with driver updates and newer game engines, despite its lower average benchmark score.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M430 | AMD Radeon R5 M255 |

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

| Chip | Jet | Topaz |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Base Clock | 780 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 855 MHz | 940 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 32.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 8 |

| FP32 Compute | 547.2 GFLOPS | 721.9 GFLOPS |

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

| Pixel Rate | 6.840 GPixel/s | 7.520 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.10 GTexel/s | 22.56 GTexel/s |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.170 |

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

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M400) | Gem System (R5 M200) |

| Release Date | Not listed | 2014-10-11 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

The table highlights that the M255 is the more advanced part in nearly every hardware metric, with the sole exceptions of memory capacity (2 GB vs 4 GB) and pixel rate (7.520 GPixel/s vs 6.840 GPixel/s — the M255 actually wins that too). The M430’s only hardware advantage is VRAM size. The M255 also has a listed release date of October 11, 2014, while the M430’s release date is not provided. Both share the same predecessor (Solar System) and successor (Polaris Mobile), and both are end-of-life products. The M255’s 1,550 million transistors versus the M430’s 690 million is the most striking difference, explaining the M255’s higher theoretical performance despite its lower benchmark average.