AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M and AMD Radeon R5 M255 are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the same era, but benchmark results show they have distinctly different strengths. The head-to-head data is split exactly one win apiece: the 930M takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5046 against 4650 for the R5 M255, an 8.5% advantage. However, the R5 M255 strikes back decisively in Geekbench Vulkan, posting 4925 versus the 930M’s 3729, a 24.3% gap. The average benchmark score slightly favors the AMD part, at 4788 compared to 4388 for the NVIDIA chip, which places the R5 M255 in the 28th percentile of all GPUs versus the 930M’s 26th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the Vulkan performance disparity. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce 930M by 24.3% in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 4925 against 3729. That is a massive margin for two mobile parts aimed at similar workloads. The data suggests that in Vulkan-based applications, the R5 M255 is in a different performance class entirely.

In contrast, the OpenCL test tells a different story. The GeForce 930M wins with 5046 points, beating the R5 M255’s 4650 by 8.5%. This is a solid, though not overwhelming, victory for NVIDIA. The two chips are closer in OpenCL performance than the Vulkan spread would imply, but the 930M still holds a clear edge.

Looking at the broader context, the R5 M255’s average benchmark score of 4788 places it nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which scores 4791 (a delta of -0.1%). This is an odd pairing in the nearestRivals data, but it underscores that the R5 M255’s average is competitive with a much more modern high-end card in this specific synthetic metric. Meanwhile, the 930M’s average of 4388 sits just 0.5% below the GeForce GT 645M’s 4411, showing it is in the same performance tier as that older part.

The wins are split evenly, but the magnitude matters. The 24.3% Vulkan margin for AMD is nearly three times larger than the 8.5% OpenCL margin for NVIDIA. If a workload relies on Vulkan, the choice is clear. If it uses OpenCL, the 930M is the safer bet, but the advantage is modest.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 930M is the pick for OpenCL-heavy tasks. Its 5046 score in Geekbench OpenCL is ahead of the R5 M255 by 8.5%, and it also beats its own nearest rival, the GeForce GT 645M, by 0.5% in average score. The 930M’s 384 shading units and 24 TMUs are the same count as the R5 M255, but the higher OpenCL result suggests NVIDIA’s driver or architecture handles that API more efficiently. For compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, the 930M delivers more throughput per frame or per operation.

The Radeon R5 M255 owns the Vulkan space. Its 4925 Vulkan score is 24.3% ahead of the 930M, and that is the single largest delta in the head-to-head data. This makes the R5 M255 the obvious choice for any Vulkan-based game or application. Its average score of 4788 also edges out the 930M’s 4388 by roughly 9.1%, so in mixed workloads, the AMD part tends to come out ahead overall. The R5 M255’s nearest rival, the GeForce 940MX, scores 4844, which is 1.2% higher, but the R5 M255 still beats the 930M comfortably in average terms.

The split is clean: NVIDIA wins one API, AMD wins the other, and AMD has the higher average. For a user who knows they will run Vulkan titles, the R5 M255 is the only rational choice. For OpenCL-specific compute, the 930M is better. For everything else, the average scores favor AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but their underlying designs diverge significantly. The GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip based on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 900M generation. It packs 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip with AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, from the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. It has 1,550 million transistors on a much larger 125 mm² die, but the density is lower at 12.4 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The R5 M255 runs at a base clock of 925 MHz with a boost of 940 MHz, while the 930M is locked at 549 MHz for both base and boost. That is a massive clock advantage for AMD, roughly 68% higher at base. However, the memory configurations tell a more nuanced story. Both use 2 GB of DDR3, but the R5 M255 has a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the 930M is constrained to a 64-bit bus and 12.80 GB/s. The R5 M255’s memory operates at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) for the NVIDIA part. This gives AMD a 2.5x bandwidth advantage, which likely explains its Vulkan dominance.

The compute outputs reflect these differences. The R5 M255 reaches 721.9 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and 721.9 GFLOPS of FP16 (at 1:1 ratio), while the 930M manages 421.6 GFLOPS of FP32 with no FP16 support listed. Pixel rate is 7.520 GPixel/s for AMD versus 4.392 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, and texture rate is 22.56 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s. The R5 M255 is simply a faster chip on paper, with higher clocks, more bandwidth, and double the FP32 throughput.

API support differs as well. The 930M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version, but that does not translate to better Vulkan performance in the benchmarks. The 930M is rated at 33 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors, while the R5 M255 has no TDP or slot width listed. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. If your priority is Vulkan performance, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the winner by a wide margin. Its 4925 Vulkan score is 24.3% higher than the 930M’s 3729, and its average benchmark score of 4788 is higher than the 930M’s 4388. The R5 M255 also has superior raw compute specs: 721.9 GFLOPS FP32, 32.00 GB/s bandwidth, and a 940 MHz boost clock. For any modern gaming workload that uses Vulkan, the R5 M255 is the only sensible pick.

If your workload is locked to OpenCL, the GeForce 930M takes the crown. Its 5046 OpenCL score beats the R5 M255 by 8.5%, despite having lower clocks and half the memory bandwidth. The 930M also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer specification than the R5 M255’s 1.2.170, which might matter for future compatibility in some niche cases.

For general use, the average benchmark scores favor the R5 M255 by about 9.1%, and it sits in the 28th percentile versus the 930M’s 26th. That is a narrow overall gap, but it is consistent with the R5 M255’s higher theoretical performance. The 930M’s nearest rival, the GeForce GT 645M, is essentially tied at 4411, while the R5 M255’s nearest rival, the GeForce 940MX, is 1.2% ahead. Neither card is a powerhouse, but the AMD part offers more headroom in the APIs that matter most for gaming today.

Choose the R5 M255 for Vulkan games and higher average performance. Choose the 930M for OpenCL compute or if you need the newer Vulkan 1.4 API. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-specific one.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins with a score of 4925, which is 24.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 930M’s 3729.

Q: What is the OpenCL performance difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 5046 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the AMD Radeon R5 M255’s 4650 by 8.5%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has an average benchmark score of 4788, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce 930M’s 4388. The R5 M255 also has a higher percentile ranking at 28% versus 26%.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M has a 64-bit bus with 12.80 GB/s. The R5 M255’s memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective).

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 delivers 721.9 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M delivers 421.6 GFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD Radeon R5 M255 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

| Feature | NVIDIA GeForce 930M | AMD Radeon R5 M255 |

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

| Chip | GM108S | Topaz |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 3.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 900M | Gem System (R5 M200) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 549 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 549 MHz | 940 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 12.80 GB/s | 32.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |

| TMUs | 24 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.392 GPixel/s | 7.520 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.18 GTexel/s | 22.56 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 421.6 GFLOPS | 721.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None listed | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 33 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | IGP | Not listed |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

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

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2014-10-11 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | Polaris Mobile |

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