AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes a single direct head-to-head comparison between these two mobile graphics processors. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5317 points against 4650 points for the AMD Radeon R5 M255. That is a 14.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin in the context of entry-level mobile GPUs where differences of a few percentage points often separate competitors.

The GeForce 930A’s OpenCL result places it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest rivals, based on average score, are the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5322 points (a negligible 0.1% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M at 5308 points (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284 points (0.6% behind). This clustering is remarkable: a low-end part like the 930A sits within 0.6% of a high-end part like the GTX 980M in this specific OpenCL workload. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 trails by a slightly larger margin, scoring 5358 points, which is 0.8% ahead of the 930A.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255, by contrast, lands in the 28th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 4788 points, derived from two recorded tests: the OpenCL score of 4650 and a Vulkan score of 4925. The nearest rivals for the R5 M255 include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4791 points (only 0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon R5 M335 at 4752 points (0.8% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4844 points (1.2% higher). The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX rounds out the group at 4727 points, 1.3% behind.

The standout observation is the 14.3% delta in OpenCL performance. Both GPUs have identical shading unit counts (384), identical texture mapping units (24), and identical render output units (8). Their pixel rates are nearly equal: 7.528 GPixel/s for the GeForce 930A versus 7.520 GPixel/s for the Radeon R5 M255. Texture rates are also close, at 22.58 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is essentially a tie, with 722.7 GFLOPS for NVIDIA and 721.9 GFLOPS for AMD. Yet the OpenCL result favors NVIDIA by a decisive double-digit percentage. This suggests that the architecture’s driver efficiency or scheduling behavior in OpenCL workloads, rather than raw theoretical throughput, drives the gap.

The Radeon R5 M255 does have one additional data point: a Vulkan score of 4925. No Vulkan result is listed for the GeForce 930A, so a direct comparison in that API cannot be made from the database. The Vulkan score for the R5 M255 is higher than its OpenCL score by about 5.9%, indicating that the GCN 3.0 architecture performs relatively better under the Vulkan API. However, without a corresponding NVIDIA Vulkan number, this cannot be translated into a head-to-head advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for OpenCL-based workloads. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A outperforms the AMD Radeon R5 M255 by 14.3% in the only common benchmark recorded. In percentile terms, the 930A sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M255 sits at the 28th. That three-percentile spread is modest overall, but the raw score gap is meaningful for users running compute tasks that rely on OpenCL.

For the NVIDIA side, the 930A also benefits from proximity to stronger-sounding rivals: it is within 0.6% of the GeForce 940M and within 0.2% of the GTX 980M in average OpenCL score. That means the 930A punches well above its apparent tier in this workload. The AMD side offers no such halo effect; the R5 M255’s nearest rival with a higher score is the GeForce 940MX at 4844 points, a 1.2% gap, and the R5 M255 itself is 0.8% ahead of the Radeon R5 M335.

Users who prioritize OpenCL compute should pick the NVIDIA GeForce 930A. Users who need Vulkan performance would need to consider the R5 M255, since it has a recorded Vulkan score of 4925 and the NVIDIA part has no Vulkan entry in the database. However, that is a narrow use case. For general benchmark performance in the measured workload, the 930A is the stronger choice. The R5 M255’s only recorded advantage is its dual-API coverage, not a superior score in any shared test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A uses the GM108 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture. It is part of the GeForce 900A generation and was released on March 12, 2015. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip, built on GCN 3.0. It belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation and was released earlier, on October 11, 2014. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node.

Die size and transistor counts diverge significantly. The NVIDIA chip measures 77 mm² with 1,020 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The AMD chip is considerably larger at 125 mm², with 1,550 million transistors, but its density is slightly lower at 12.4 million per mm². Despite the larger die, the AMD part does not translate that into higher benchmark scores in the shared OpenCL test.

Memory subsystems differ in a way that should theoretically favor AMD. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory, and both run at effectively 2 Gbps. However, the Radeon R5 M255 has a 128-bit memory bus, yielding 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GeForce 930A is limited to a 64-bit bus and 16.02 GB/s. The AMD part has exactly double the memory bandwidth. This disparity does not rescue its OpenCL score, which suggests the workload is not bandwidth-bound or that the NVIDIA driver compensates elsewhere.

Clock speeds are nearly identical. The GeForce 930A runs at 928 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. The Radeon R5 M255 runs at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. Memory clocks are also effectively the same at 1001 MHz versus 1000 MHz. The compute metrics reflect this parity: pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput are all within 0.1% of each other.

API support shows a notable difference. The NVIDIA part lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part lists DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. AMD claims the higher DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_0), while NVIDIA claims a newer Vulkan version. The R5 M255 also has a listed FP16 rate of 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), meaning it processes half-precision at the same rate as FP32. The GeForce 930A has no FP16 figure recorded.

Power characteristics are partially documented. The NVIDIA GPU has a TDP of 33 W, uses no power connectors, and is classified as an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The AMD part has no TDP listed, no slot width, and no power connector information. The NVIDIA part is the only one with a complete power profile in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5317 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650. The NVIDIA part leads by 14.3%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M255 have any benchmark that the NVIDIA part lacks?

A: Yes. The R5 M255 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925. The GeForce 930A has no Vulkan score listed in the database.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a 128-bit bus and 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A has a 64-bit bus and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. AMD doubles the bandwidth, yet still loses the OpenCL test.

Q: Are the two GPUs similar in raw compute specifications?

A: Yes. Both have 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. FP32 throughput is 722.7 GFLOPS for NVIDIA and 721.9 GFLOPS for AMD. Pixel rates are 7.528 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s.

Q: What are the architectural generations of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108 chip. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses GCN 3.0 with the Topaz chip. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has a better position in the overall database percentile ranking?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 sits in the 28th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins the only directly comparable benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, it beats the Radeon R5 M255 by 14.3%, with scores of 5317 versus 4650. This is the clearest use case for the NVIDIA part: any application or workflow that relies on OpenCL compute will see a tangible advantage. The 930A also benefits from favorable comparisons to its nearest rivals, sitting within 0.6% of the GeForce 940M and within 0.2% of the GeForce GTX 980M in average score. That makes it a surprisingly competitive option for OpenCL-heavy tasks despite its entry-level positioning.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has no head-to-head wins in the recorded data. Its strength lies in API coverage. It has a Vulkan score of 4925, which is higher than its own OpenCL score of 4650. For users running Vulkan-based applications, the R5 M255 has at least a documented performance profile. The NVIDIA part has no Vulkan entry, so any comparison in that API is impossible from the database. Additionally, the R5 M255’s doubled memory bandwidth (32.00 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s) could be an advantage in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, but no benchmark in the database confirms this.

The R5 M255 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), a higher feature level than the GeForce 930A’s DirectX 12 (11_0). For gaming titles that exploit DX12 features beyond the 11_0 subset, the AMD part has a theoretical edge. The NVIDIA part counters with a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170), but again, no Vulkan score exists for NVIDIA to validate any practical benefit.

In summary, the GeForce 930A wins where measurements exist. The R5 M255 wins only where measurements are absent, offering Vulkan support and a wider memory bus as qualitative advantages. Users with OpenCL workloads should choose NVIDIA. Users with Vulkan-specific needs or bandwidth-hungry tasks may prefer AMD, but the database does not provide evidence that those advantages translate into higher scores.