AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce 830M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M and AMD Radeon R5 M255 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from 2014, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the two GPUs have different architectural strengths that matter depending on the workload. The GeForce 830M is a Maxwell-based part with 256 shading units, while the Radeon R5 M255 uses GCN 3.0 with 384 shading units. Across the two head-to-head tests in the database, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins both, with an average benchmark score of 4788 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce 830M’s 3957, a difference of roughly 21 percent. The Radeon also sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce sits at the 24th. These figures alone indicate that the Radeon holds a performance lead, but the specific test results reveal where each card can still be relevant.

Where Each One Wins

The database records two benchmark tests for these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins both, but the margin is not uniform. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon scores 4650 against the GeForce 830M’s 4324, a difference of 7 percent. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically: the Radeon scores 4925 while the GeForce manages only 3590, a 27.1 percent deficit for the NVIDIA part. This split matters. In OpenCL workloads, which are common in general-purpose compute tasks and some older games, the Radeon is ahead but not by a dominant margin. The GeForce 830M’s Maxwell architecture can still keep it within striking distance in these scenarios. In Vulkan workloads, however, the Radeon’s GCN 3.0 architecture pulls far ahead, suggesting that any application or game that uses the Vulkan API will strongly favor the AMD part.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the Radeon R5 M255’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4791 (just 0.1 percent ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M335 at 4752 (0.8 percent behind the Radeon), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4844 (1.2 percent ahead). The GeForce 830M’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956 (essentially tied), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (0.1 percent behind the 830M), and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3964 (0.2 percent ahead). This places the Radeon R5 M255 in a higher performance class entirely, roughly 20 percent above the GeForce 830M’s peer group. The GeForce 830M’s wins, if any, would come in scenarios where its lower power envelope (33 W TDP) and smaller die size (77 mm² versus 125 mm²) allow it to sustain clocks or fit into thinner laptops, but the benchmark data does not record any test where it beats the Radeon.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded measurements, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the superior GPU for raw performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average benchmark score (4788 versus 3957), and ranks higher in the percentile of all GPUs (28th versus 24th). Anyone choosing between these two for gaming, compute, or Vulkan-based applications should pick the Radeon R5 M255 without hesitation. The GeForce 830M’s only advantages lie in its lower power draw (33 W TDP versus no recorded TDP for the Radeon) and its smaller physical footprint (77 mm² die size versus 125 mm²), which could matter in ultra-thin notebook designs where thermal and space constraints are severe. However, the data shows no performance scenario where the GeForce comes out ahead, so that choice would be purely about integration constraints, not capability.

For users who prioritize Vulkan performance specifically, the Radeon R5 M255 is the clear choice, as its 4925 Vulkan score is 27.1 percent higher than the GeForce 830M’s 3590. For OpenCL tasks, the Radeon still leads, but the margin is smaller at 7 percent, meaning the GeForce 830M is less of a liability in that specific API. The database also shows that the Radeon R5 M255’s average score of 4788 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844), a well-regarded mobile GPU from the same era, while the GeForce 830M’s average of 3957 sits near the GeForce GT 745M (3953). In short, the verdict is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R5 M255 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce 830M across every recorded metric, and the choice between them is only complicated by non-performance factors like power consumption and physical size.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two head-to-head tests in the database cover distinct APIs, and the results show a pattern that favors the AMD architecture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 4324. This 326-point gap translates to a 7 percent advantage for the Radeon. OpenCL is a cross-platform compute API used in applications like video encoding, image processing, and some physics simulations. The Radeon’s higher shading unit count (384 versus 256) and higher texture rate (22.56 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s) likely contribute to this lead, though the GeForce’s higher pixel rate (9.200 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s) does not overcome the Radeon’s raw compute throughput in this test.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the difference is far more pronounced. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4925, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 3590, a 1335-point gap that represents a 27.1 percent advantage for the Radeon. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API that benefits from efficient command processing and parallel architecture. The Radeon’s GCN 3.0 architecture, designed with compute-heavy workloads in mind, clearly handles Vulkan better than the GeForce’s Maxwell architecture. This result is the single biggest differentiator between the two GPUs in the entire dataset. Notably, the GeForce 830M’s Vulkan score (3590) is actually lower than its OpenCL score (4324), suggesting that the Maxwell architecture struggles with Vulkan’s threading model. In contrast, the Radeon’s Vulkan score (4925) is higher than its OpenCL score (4650), indicating that GCN 3.0 is well-suited to the API.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this trend. The GeForce 830M averages 3957 across all recorded tests, while the Radeon R5 M255 averages 4788. That 831-point difference is about 21 percent, consistent with the OpenCL margin but smaller than the Vulkan margin. The Radeon’s nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which scores 4791 on average, just 0.1 percent higher than the Radeon. This is a remarkable data point: a low-end mobile GPU from 2014 sits within 0.1 percent of a desktop flagship from a later generation in this synthetic benchmark. The GeForce 830M, by contrast, has a nearest rival in the AMD Radeon R5 M420, which scores 3956, essentially identical to the 830M’s 3957. This confirms that the GeForce 830M is firmly in the entry-level class, while the Radeon R5 M255 punches well above its weight.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has an average benchmark score of 4788, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M has an average of 3957, making the Radeon about 21 percent faster on average.

Q: How big is the gap in Vulkan performance?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4925, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 3590, a difference of 27.1 percent in favor of the Radeon.

Q: Does the GeForce 830M win any benchmark?

A: No. In the two recorded head-to-head benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins both, with zero wins recorded for the NVIDIA GeForce 830M.

Q: How does the GeForce 830M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GeForce 830M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (average score 3956, essentially tied), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.1 percent behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964, 0.2 percent ahead).

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 384 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M has 256 shading units. The Radeon also has 24 texture mapping units versus 16 on the GeForce.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M has a pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M255’s 7.520 GPixel/s, despite the Radeon winning all benchmark tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M uses the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM108 chip, which is a small, power-efficient design with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture, built on the Topaz chip, with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. This means the Radeon has about 52 percent more transistors and a die that is about 62 percent larger. Transistor density is slightly higher on the GeForce: 13.2 million transistors per mm² versus 12.4 million on the Radeon, but the Radeon’s larger absolute transistor count gives it more compute resources.

The shading unit count reflects this: the Radeon has 384 shading units, 50 percent more than the GeForce’s 256. Texture mapping units follow the same pattern, with 24 on the Radeon versus 16 on the GeForce. Both have 8 ROPs, so pixel output is not a differentiator in terms of unit count, but the GeForce’s higher clock speed (1082 MHz base, 1150 MHz boost versus 925 MHz base, 940 MHz boost on the Radeon) gives it a higher pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s. However, the Radeon’s higher texture rate (22.56 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (721.9 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS) show that its raw compute advantage outweighs the clock speed difference.

Memory architecture also differs significantly. The GeForce 830M has a 64-bit memory bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon R5 M255 has a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth, more than double. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the Radeon’s wider bus gives it a substantial bandwidth advantage that likely contributes to its higher benchmark scores, especially in Vulkan. The Radeon also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio (721.9 GFLOPS), while the GeForce has no recorded FP16 capability. API support differs as well: the GeForce supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher DirectX feature level on the Radeon (12_0 versus 11_0) may explain some of its better performance in modern workloads.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several clear differences between the two GPUs. The process node is identical (28 nm, TSMC), but the transistor counts differ: the GeForce 830M has 1,020 million transistors, while the Radeon R5 M255 has 1,550 million. Die size also differs, with the GeForce at 77 mm² and the Radeon at 125 mm². Clock speeds favor the GeForce: its base clock is 1082 MHz and boost is 1150 MHz, while the Radeon runs at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. Memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on the GeForce versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) on the Radeon.

Memory configuration differs in bus width and bandwidth: the GeForce uses a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon uses a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory. The shading unit count is 256 on the GeForce versus 384 on the Radeon, and TMUs are 16 versus 24, respectively. Both have 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is higher on the GeForce (9.200 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s), but texture rate is higher on the Radeon (22.56 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is 588.8 GFLOPS on the GeForce and 721.9 GFLOPS on the Radeon, with the Radeon also offering FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications are incomplete for the Radeon: its TDP, slot width, power connectors, and display outputs are not recorded. The GeForce 830M has a TDP of 33 W, a slot width of "IGP" (integrated graphics processor), no power connectors, and portable device dependent display outputs. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. API support shows the GeForce with DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon has DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates differ by seven months: the GeForce launched on March 11, 2014, and the Radeon on October 11, 2014. The GeForce’s predecessor is the GeForce 700M series and its successor is the GeForce 900M series, while the Radeon’s predecessor is "Solar System" and its successor is "Polaris Mobile."