AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M dominates the AMD Radeon R5 M255 in every recorded test. In the Geekbench OpenCL workload, the GTX 765M scores 7,176 against the R5 M255's 4,650, a 54.3% advantage. That is a decisive gap, not a marginal one. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the GTX 765M posting 6,714 versus 4,925 for the AMD part, a 36.3% lead. Across the two head-to-head benchmarks, the NVIDIA card wins both, giving it a clean 2-0 record.

The magnitude of these deltas matters. A 54.3% OpenCL lead means the GTX 765M is not just faster, it is in a different performance class for compute workloads. The 36.3% Vulkan gap, while smaller, still represents a substantial advantage in graphics API performance. For anyone comparing these two mobile GPUs, the recorded data leaves no room for ambiguity: the GTX 765M is the stronger performer in every measurable way.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the GTX 765M averages 5,501 across all recorded tests, while the R5 M255 averages 4,788. That is a 14.9% overall advantage for the NVIDIA part. The GTX 765M also sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the R5 M255 sits at the 28th percentile. Both are lower-midrange parts, but the GTX 765M consistently places above its AMD rival.

The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize their standing. The GTX 765M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, which scores 5,508, a delta of -0.1% relative to the GTX 765M. That means the MX130 is essentially a dead heat. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5,483, just 0.3% behind, and the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5,537, which is 0.7% ahead. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 sits 0.6% behind at 5,467. These are all within a percentage point, indicating the GTX 765M is squarely in a competitive cluster of similar-performance mobile GPUs.

The R5 M255's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M335 at 4,752, which is 0.8% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4,844, 1.2% ahead of the R5 M255. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX scores 4,727, 1.3% behind. Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB appears in the R5 M255's nearest rival list with an average score of 4,791, a delta of -0.1%. That is an anomaly in the database, as the RTX 3080 is clearly a far more powerful desktop part, but the recorded average score places it there. Regardless, the R5 M255's performance neighborhood is noticeably lower than the GTX 765M's.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins in every category that the benchmark data covers. In OpenCL compute, it holds a 54.3% lead, which translates directly to faster general-purpose GPU workloads such as video encoding, image processing, and scientific calculations. In Vulkan, the 36.3% advantage means better frame rates and smoother rendering in games and applications that use the Vulkan API. The GTX 765M also wins on raw specifications: it has 768 shading units versus 384 on the R5 M255, 64 texture mapping units versus 24, and 16 raster output units versus 8.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has no recorded benchmark wins. Its strengths, if any, are not reflected in the database measurements. It does have a higher base clock at 925 MHz versus 797 MHz on the GTX 765M, and a higher boost clock at 940 MHz versus 863 MHz. But those clock advantages do not translate into performance wins. The R5 M255 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). That is a feature-level difference, but it does not show up as a benchmark advantage in the recorded tests.

For use cases, the data suggests the GTX 765M is the choice for anyone prioritizing compute performance, Vulkan-based gaming, or general GPU acceleration. The R5 M255 would only be suitable for lighter workloads where its lower performance is acceptable, but the database shows no scenario where it outperforms the GTX 765M. The R5 M255's higher clocks and newer DirectX feature level do not overcome its halved shading units, TMUs, and ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families with distinct design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip based on GCN 3.0, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter.

The transistor counts reveal a significant difference in complexity. The GTX 765M packs nearly a billion more transistors than the R5 M255. That extra silicon translates into more execution units: 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the NVIDIA part, versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the AMD part. The GTX 765M also has a higher pixel rate at 13.81 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate at 55.23 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern: the GTX 765M delivers 1,325.6 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R5 M255 delivers 721.9 GFLOPS. The R5 M255 does support FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), which the GTX 765M does not list.

Memory is another major divergence. The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but only manages 32.00 GB/s. That is exactly half the bandwidth, which explains part of the performance gap in memory-intensive workloads. The GTX 765M's memory clock is listed at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the R5 M255 runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective.

The API support also differs. The GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a higher DirectX feature level, but the NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version. Power delivery also diverges: the GTX 765M has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors, while the R5 M255 has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connector information. The GTX 765M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the R5 M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the superior GPU in this comparison. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, and sits at a higher percentile among all GPUs. The 54.3% OpenCL lead and 36.3% Vulkan lead are decisive. Anyone choosing between these two should pick the GTX 765M unless they have a specific reason to prefer the R5 M255, such as the higher DirectX feature level or lower power draw, but the R5 M255's TDP is not even listed in the database.

The GTX 765M is also closer to its nearest rivals in performance. Its average score of 5,501 is within 0.7% of the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5,537 and within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5,508. That means the GTX 765M is competitively positioned within its own performance class. The R5 M255, by contrast, sits in a lower class, with its nearest rivals all scoring below 4,850. The gap between the two GPUs is not small, and it is not a matter of one having a slight edge in a specific workload. The GTX 765M is simply the faster part across the board.

For gaming, the Vulkan advantage matters. For compute, the OpenCL advantage matters. For general use, the higher average score matters. The GTX 765M is the pick for anyone who wants better performance in the recorded benchmarks. The R5 M255 would only make sense in a system where the GTX 765M is not available, or where the specific DirectX 12 (12_0) feature level is required. Otherwise, the data is clear.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins with a score of 7,176 versus the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4,650, a 54.3% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 765M in Vulkan?

A: The GTX 765M scores 6,714 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, while the R5 M255 scores 4,925. That is a 36.3% lead for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The GTX 765M has 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5 memory, while the R5 M255 has 32.00 GB/s using DDR3. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, while the R5 M255 has 384. The GTX 765M also has 64 TMUs versus 24, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: Does the R5 M255 have any benchmark wins over the GTX 765M?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmarks show the GTX 765M winning both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests, giving it a 2-0 record.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The GTX 765M has an average benchmark score of 5,501, while the R5 M255 has an average of 4,788.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M | AMD Radeon R5 M255 |

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

| Chip | GK106 | Topaz |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 3.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 700M | Gem System (R5 M200) |

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

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 125 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 797 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 863 MHz | 940 MHz |

| 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 | 13.81 GPixel/s | 7.520 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 55.23 GTexel/s | 22.56 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,325.6 GFLOPS | 721.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2013-05-29 | 2014-10-11 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 800M | Polaris Mobile |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 32 | 28 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5,501 | 4,788 |