AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs AMD Radeon Vega 3 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics. The R5 M255 is a discrete part from the GCN 3.0 era, while the Vega 3 is an integrated GPU built into a modern APU. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear, if narrow, overall winner, but the story is more complex when looking at individual workloads and system contexts. The R5 M255 holds an average benchmark score of 4788, placing it in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 3 averages 4268, landing in the 25th percentile. This makes the discrete card roughly 12.2% faster in average score, a lead that is consistent across the two directly comparable tests.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is straightforward based on the recorded data. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins every head-to-head benchmark included in the database. It is the stronger choice for compute-heavy applications that rely on OpenCL and Vulkan APIs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R5 M255 scores 4650 against the Vega 3’s 3963, a 17.3% advantage. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the R5 M255 scores 4925 versus 3961, expanding its lead to 24.3%. These results indicate that for tasks like general-purpose GPU computing, video encoding, or running modern graphics APIs, the discrete R5 M255 delivers noticeably higher performance.

The AMD Radeon Vega 3, however, has a different kind of win: it wins on integration and API breadth. It is an IGP, meaning it shares system memory and requires no separate power connectors. The data shows it supports a newer DirectX version, 12_1, compared to the R5 M255’s 12_0, and a newer Vulkan version, 1.3 versus 1.2.170. It also has a Metal benchmark score of 4880, a test the R5 M255 was not recorded in. This suggests the Vega 3 is more versatile in terms of software compatibility, particularly for users who might run applications that leverage Metal on compatible systems. The Vega 3’s performance is lower, but its architecture is newer and its feature set is more modern.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The R5 M255 is built on GCN 3.0, a design that dates back to 2014, while the Vega 3 is based on GCN 5.0, a much later iteration. The process nodes reflect this: the R5 M255 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Vega 3 uses a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries. This node difference is critical. The Vega 3’s 12 nm process allows for a much higher transistor density, 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to the R5 M255’s 12.4 million. The Vega 3’s full chip, the Picasso APU, contains 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, whereas the R5 M255’s Topaz chip has 1,550 million on a 125 mm² die.

The compute configurations are also inverted in an interesting way. The R5 M255 has more raw compute units: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Vega 3 is smaller in this regard, with 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. This explains why the R5 M255 achieves higher pixel and texture rates, 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s respectively, against the Vega 3’s 4.400 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s. However, the Vega 3 has a distinct advantage in clock speeds. Its boost clock reaches 1100 MHz, while the R5 M255’s boost is only 940 MHz. The base clocks are even more divergent: the Vega 3 runs at 300 MHz base, while the R5 M255 sits at 925 MHz. The Vega 3’s higher boost clock suggests it can ramp up when thermal and power headroom allow, but its lower base clock indicates a design focused on energy efficiency.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The R5 M255 has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 3 uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent. This is a crucial difference. The discrete R5 M255 does not compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, which can be a benefit in memory-intensive tasks. The Vega 3, as an IGP, is entirely reliant on the system’s RAM, which can be a bottleneck depending on the platform it is paired with.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two direct comparisons in the database are both wins for the R5 M255. The first is Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the R5 M255 scores 4650, and the Vega 3 scores 3963. The delta is 17.3% in favor of the discrete card. This is a meaningful margin. OpenCL is often used for compute workloads like physics simulations, image processing, or cryptocurrency mining. The R5 M255’s higher shading unit count and dedicated memory likely contribute to this advantage. The Vega 3’s lower score is not surprising given its halved compute resources, but the margin shows that the older architecture still has a raw throughput edge.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan. The R5 M255 scores 4925, while the Vega 3 scores 3961. This is a 24.3% advantage for the R5 M255, an even larger gap than in OpenCL. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead graphics API, and it is often used in games and demanding 3D applications. The result suggests that for gaming workloads that use Vulkan, the R5 M255 is significantly faster. The Vega 3’s newer architecture and higher boost clock do not overcome the R5 M255’s superior raw resources in this test. The Vega 3’s only recorded win is in the Geekbench Metal test, where it scores 4880, but no corresponding score exists for the R5 M255, so a direct comparison is not possible.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The R5 M255’s average score of 4788 places it just 0.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which is a high-end desktop card, though that delta is statistically negligible. It is 0.8% faster than the AMD Radeon R5 M335 and 1.3% faster than the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, but 1.2% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. The Vega 3’s average of 4268 is 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, 0.6% below the AMD FirePro W2100, and 1.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, but 0.6% above the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M. These comparisons show both GPUs are firmly in the entry-level mobile segment, with the R5 M255 holding a slight edge over its direct competitor.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows several areas where the two GPUs diverge. The most obvious is the process node: 28 nm for the R5 M255 versus 12 nm for the Vega 3. The architecture also differs, with GCN 3.0 on the R5 M255 and GCN 5.0 on the Vega 3. The transistor count and die size are not directly comparable because the Vega 3’s figures are for the entire Picasso APU, not just the GPU portion. Still, the listed numbers show the Vega 3’s host chip is larger and more complex.

Clock speeds are a key differentiator. The R5 M255 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost of 940 MHz, while the Vega 3 has a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 1100 MHz. The Vega 3’s boost is significantly higher, but its base is much lower. Memory is another major split: the R5 M255 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 with a 128-bit bus and 32.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 3 has system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The shading unit count is double on the R5 M255, 384 versus 192, as are the TMUs, 24 versus 12, and ROPs, 8 versus 4.

Pixel and texture rates favor the R5 M255, with 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s against 4.400 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is also higher on the R5 M255 at 721.9 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS. However, FP16 performance is reversed: the Vega 3 achieves 844.8 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the R5 M255 achieves 721.9 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Vega 3 also lists a TDP of 15 W, while the R5 M255 has no TDP listed. The Vega 3 is an IGP with no power connectors, while the R5 M255 is a discrete card. API support shows the Vega 3 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3, while the R5 M255 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has an average benchmark score of 4788, which is higher than the AMD Radeon Vega 3’s average of 4268.

Q: In which benchmark does the R5 M255 show its largest advantage over the Vega 3?

A: The R5 M255 shows its largest advantage in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 4925 against the Vega 3’s 3961, a 24.3% difference.

Q: Does the Vega 3 have any performance advantage in the recorded data?

A: The Vega 3 has a higher FP16 performance of 844.8 GFLOPS, compared to the R5 M255’s 721.9 GFLOPS. It also has a recorded Geekbench Metal score of 4880, which is not available for the R5 M255.

Q: What is the difference in process node between the two GPUs?

A: The R5 M255 is built on a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Vega 3 uses a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ?

A: The R5 M255 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 3 uses system shared memory, and its bandwidth is listed as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for raw performance: the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the faster GPU. It wins both direct head-to-head benchmarks, with a 17.3% lead in OpenCL and a 24.3% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 12.2% higher, and it has a higher percentile ranking at 28 versus 25. For users who need a discrete GPU for compute tasks or Vulkan-based applications, the R5 M255 is the better choice based on these measurements.

The AMD Radeon Vega 3, however, is not without merit. Its newer GCN 5.0 architecture and 12 nm process bring support for DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3, which are more modern API versions than what the R5 M255 offers. It also has a higher boost clock of 1100 MHz and superior FP16 performance, suggesting it can handle certain workloads with better efficiency. As an IGP with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, it is a simpler, more integrated solution. The verdict depends on the user’s priorities. For pure performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, the R5 M255 is the winner. For a more modern feature set, better API support, and a lower-power integrated design, the Vega 3 is the appropriate pick. The recorded data supports both conclusions, but the performance crown belongs to the R5 M255.