AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split decision between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M and the AMD Radeon R5 M255, with each card claiming one victory in the two recorded tests. The most decisive result comes from the Geekbench OpenCL workload, where the GTX 760M posts a score of 5,604 against the R5 M255's 4,650. This represents a 20.5% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin that suggests the GTX 760M holds a clear edge in compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL acceleration.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a different story, however. Here, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 edges ahead with a score of 4,925 versus the GTX 760M's 4,868. The delta is small, just 1.2% in AMD's favor, but it is a win nonetheless. This result implies that when the workload shifts to Vulkan's lower-level API, the R5 M255 can close the gap and even surpass its rival, likely due to architectural efficiencies in how GCN 3.0 handles Vulkan's command buffers and draw calls.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the GTX 760M posts 5,236 overall, while the R5 M255 averages 4,788. That is a 448-point difference, roughly 9.4% in favor of NVIDIA. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the GTX 760M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M255 sits at the 28th. Both are firmly in entry-level territory, but the NVIDIA card occupies a slightly higher position in the overall distribution.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The GTX 760M's closest competitors include the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (average score 5,211, a 0.5% gap), the GeForce 940M (5,284, -0.9%), and the GeForce GTX 980M (5,308, -1.3%). The AMD Radeon R7 M260X trails at 5,161, putting it 1.5% behind the GTX 760M. For the R5 M255, the nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4,791 (a 0.1% gap, remarkably close for such a disparity in class), the AMD Radeon R5 M335 at 4,752 (0.8% behind), and the GeForce 940MX at 4,844 (1.2% ahead). These numbers show that the R5 M255 is competitive with a specific cluster of low-end mobile GPUs, but it does not reach the same performance tier as the GTX 760M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M wins decisively, scoring 5,604 compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4,650, a 20.5% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M255 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the R5 M255 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 4,925 against the GTX 760M's 4,868, a margin of 1.2%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The GTX 760M averages 5,236 across all recorded benchmarks, while the R5 M255 averages 4,788.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The GTX 760M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M255 sits at the 28th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a boost clock of 940 MHz, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M has a boost clock of 719 MHz.

Q: What memory type does each GPU use?

A: The GTX 760M uses GDDR5 memory, while the R5 M255 uses DDR3 memory, with both having a 128-bit bus width.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK106S chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Topaz chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both share the same process node, but the transistor counts diverge significantly: the GTX 760M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the R5 M255 contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. This gives the NVIDIA chip a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm², whereas the AMD chip achieves 12.4 million per mm², indicating the R5 M255 is slightly denser despite having fewer total transistors.

The compute resources differ sharply. The GTX 760M features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA card has exactly double the shading units and more than double the texture units, which explains its dominant OpenCL performance. The pixel rate for the GTX 760M is 11.50 GPixel/s compared to 7.520 GPixel/s for the R5 M255, and the texture rate is 46.02 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s. In raw floating-point throughput, the GTX 760M delivers 1,104.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R5 M255 delivers 721.9 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the R5 M255 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (721.9 GFLOPS), whereas the GTX 760M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory architecture is another point of divergence. The GTX 760M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s. The R5 M255 also has 2 GB but uses DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, resulting in a bandwidth of just 32.00 GB/s, exactly half of the NVIDIA card's throughput. The memory clocks differ as well: the GTX 760M runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the R5 M255 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). This bandwidth disparity is likely a significant factor in the GTX 760M's OpenCL advantage.

Clock speeds tell a contrasting story. The R5 M255 has a higher base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 940 MHz. The GTX 760M is rated at 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost. Despite the AMD card running at higher clocks, the GTX 760M's superior compute unit count and memory bandwidth more than compensate. The power envelope also differs: the GTX 760M has a TDP of 55 W, while the R5 M255 has no recorded TDP in the database, making direct power comparison impossible. The GTX 760M is designed as an MXM module with no power connectors, whereas the R5 M255 has no slot width or power connector data recorded.

API support shows a notable difference in DirectX versions. The GTX 760M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both offer OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan support is close: 1.2.175 for NVIDIA and 1.2.170 for AMD. The bus interface also differs, with the GTX 760M using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the R5 M255 using PCIe 3.0 x8. Release dates are separated by roughly 17 months: the GTX 760M launched on May 29, 2013, while the R5 M255 launched on October 11, 2014. Both are end-of-life products, with the GTX 760M succeeding GeForce 600M and preceding GeForce 800M, while the R5 M255 follows the Solar System generation and precedes Polaris Mobile.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for most use cases. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is the stronger performer overall, with a 20.5% lead in OpenCL, a 9.4% higher average benchmark score, and a higher percentile ranking (31st versus 28th). Its doubling of shading units, 64 TMUs versus 24, and memory bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s give it a structural advantage that clock speed alone cannot overcome. For users whose workloads rely on OpenCL, such as certain compute applications and older game engines, the GTX 760M is the obvious choice.

However, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is not without merit. Its Vulkan win, albeit by a narrow 1.2%, suggests that in Vulkan-based titles or applications, the R5 M255 can hold its own or even outperform the NVIDIA card. The R5 M255 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), a feature level that the GTX 760M does not match, which could matter for modern games that leverage DX12 features. The higher boost clock of 940 MHz versus 719 MHz may also translate to better responsiveness in lightly threaded scenarios.

Who should pick which? If the priority is raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and general benchmark dominance, the GTX 760M is the data-backed recommendation. If the workload is specifically Vulkan-centric or relies on DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the R5 M255 becomes a viable alternative despite its lower overall scores. The GTX 760M is also the better choice for those who need PCIe 3.0 x16 bandwidth, as the R5 M255 is limited to x8. For users in the entry-level laptop market, the GTX 760M offers more headroom for demanding tasks, while the R5 M255 may suffice for lighter workloads where Vulkan is the primary API.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M | AMD Radeon R5 M255 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | GK106S | Topaz |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 628 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 719 MHz | 940 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.13 GB/s | 32.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.50 GPixel/s | 7.520 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.02 GTexel/s | 22.56 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1,104.4 GFLOPS | 721.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | None recorded | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | May 29, 2013 | October 11, 2014 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M wins in every category that demands raw throughput. Its OpenCL score of 5,604 is 20.5% higher than the R5 M255, and its average benchmark score of 5,236 versus 4,788 gives it a 9.4% overall edge. The GDDR5 memory with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth is double the R5 M255's DDR3 bandwidth of 32.00 GB/s, which directly benefits texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution framebuffers. The 768 shading units and 64 TMUs provide 1,104.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute and 46.02 GTexel/s of texture fill, making it the superior choice for compute shaders, physics simulations, and any application that scales with parallel execution units. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface also offers greater host bandwidth, which can reduce transfer bottlenecks in data-intensive tasks.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in the Vulkan benchmark, posting 4,925 versus 4,868, a 1.2% margin. This suggests that in Vulkan-optimized games, the architectural advantages of GCN 3.0 can overcome the hardware deficits. The higher base and boost clocks (925 MHz and 940 MHz versus 628 MHz and 719 MHz) may help in latency-sensitive scenarios where clock speed matters more than core count. The R5 M255 also holds a feature advantage with DirectX 12 (12_0) support, which enables newer rendering features that the GTX 760M's DirectX 12 (11_0) cannot access. For users running primarily Vulkan-based titles or applications that use DX12 Ultimate features, the R5 M255 is the data-supported choice despite its lower raw performance. Its smaller die size of 125 mm² and lower transistor count of 1,550 million may also imply lower manufacturing complexity, though no TDP data is recorded to confirm power efficiency.