AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear and decisive picture in the direct comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and the AMD Radeon R5 M255. Across the two shared tests, the GTX 980M records a victory in every instance, with margins that are not merely incremental but transformative.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M scores 23,832 points against the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4,650 points. This translates to a delta of 412.5% in favor of the GTX 980M. To put that in perspective, the GTX 980M is delivering over five times the compute performance of the R5 M255 in this workload. This is not a close contest; it is a category difference.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a similar pattern. The GTX 980M achieves 17,703 points, while the R5 M255 manages 4,925 points. The delta here is 259.5%, meaning the NVIDIA part is roughly 3.6 times faster. While the margin is slightly narrower than in OpenCL, it remains an overwhelming advantage for the GTX 980M.

The overall benchmark averages reinforce this hierarchy. The GTX 980M holds an average benchmark score of 5,308 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database. The R5 M255, with only two recorded benchmarks, sits at an average of 4,788 and the 28th percentile. The absolute difference in average scores is 520 points, but the percentile gap is modest because the R5 M255's limited test set pulls its average upward relative to its actual performance class.

When examining the nearest rivals from the database, the context becomes more nuanced. The GTX 980M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce 930A with an average score of 5,317, a delta of -0.2%. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5,322, -0.3%) and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5,358, -0.9%) are also within a single percentage point. Only the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5,284, 0.5%) trails the GTX 980M by a small margin. This clustering indicates that the GTX 980M, despite its age, sits in a tight competitive band with these mid-range parts.

The R5 M255's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its closest match is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4,791, -0.1%), a name that is far higher in the product stack, but the average score is nearly identical due to the R5 M255's limited benchmark count. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4,752, 0.8%) and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4,727, 1.3%) are slightly behind, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4,844, -1.2%) is marginally ahead. The R5 M255 is clearly in the low-performance tier, competing with entry-level parts.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural gap between these two GPUs explains the benchmark results. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is built on the GM204 chip, using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die is substantial: 398 mm² with 5,200 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². This is a full-size laptop GPU designed for performance.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip, based on GCN 3.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. However, the die is much smaller at 125 mm², containing 1,550 million transistors, which gives a density of 12.4M per mm². The transistor count difference is stark: the GTX 980M has over three times as many transistors, and the die area is over three times larger.

The execution resources reflect this disparity. The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. In every category, the GTX 980M has four times the shading units, four times the TMUs, and eight times the ROPs. This directly translates to fill rate and compute throughput.

Clock speeds show a modest difference. The GTX 980M runs at a base clock of 1,038 MHz with a boost of 1,127 MHz. The R5 M255 operates at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part is faster in raw clock terms, but the real advantage comes from the massive difference in execution units.

Memory subsystems are also generations apart. The GTX 980M comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1,253 MHz, which translates to 5 Gbps effective. The R5 M255 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing only 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory runs at 1,000 MHz, or 2 Gbps effective. The GTX 980M has five times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions.

The bus interface also differs. The GTX 980M uses MXM-B (3.0), a modular form factor for laptop upgrades, while the R5 M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The GTX 980M's slot width is listed as MXM Module, and it has no power connectors, indicating it draws power through the MXM slot.

API support shows a small but real gap. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 980M supports feature level 12_1, while the R5 M255 only reaches 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the GTX 980M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M255 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer Vulkan version on the NVIDIA part can enable better driver optimizations and feature support in modern titles.

The R5 M255 has a notable specification in its FP16 throughput: it lists 721.9 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The GTX 980M does not have a listed FP16 value, which is typical for Maxwell 2.0 where FP16 is not a separate execution path.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M scores 23,832 points against the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4,650 points, a delta of 412.5% in favor of the GTX 980M.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The GTX 980M has 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The R5 M255 has 32.00 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA part has five times the bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The GTX 980M uses 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The R5 M255 uses 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The GTX 980M has over three times the transistors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 980M has an average benchmark score of 5,308, while the R5 M255 has 4,788. The GTX 980M sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, and the R5 M255 is in the 28th percentile.

Q: Is there any test where the R5 M255 wins?

A: No. Across the two head-to-head benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the GTX 980M wins both with no recorded victories for the R5 M255.

Q: What is the release date gap?

A: The GTX 980M was released on October 6, 2014, and the R5 M255 was released on October 11, 2014. They are nearly contemporary, just five days apart.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is in a completely different performance class from the AMD Radeon R5 M255. The benchmark results show a 412.5% lead in OpenCL and a 259.5% lead in Vulkan. These are not marginal gains; they are decisive victories across every measurable metric.

The GTX 980M's architecture is fundamentally larger and more capable. With 1,536 shading units versus 384, 64 ROPs versus 8, and 160.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 32.00 GB/s, the NVIDIA part has the resources to handle demanding workloads. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory also provides capacity for modern game textures and compute buffers, while the R5 M255's 2 GB of DDR3 is a bottleneck for anything beyond light usage.

The R5 M255's only redeeming quality is its smaller die and lower transistor count, which likely implies lower power consumption, but the database does not list TDP values for either part. Without that data, no power efficiency claims can be made.

For any user choosing between these two from the recorded data, the GTX 980M is the only rational pick for performance. The R5 M255 is a basic entry-level part that competes with the likes of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4,844 average score, -1.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4,752, 0.8% delta). The GTX 980M competes with the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5,317, -0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5,322, -0.3% delta), which are all roughly 10% faster on average than the R5 M255.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every hardware category. The core configuration is the most obvious: the GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 980M's pixel rate is 72.13 GPixel/s and texture rate is 108.2 GTexel/s, while the R5 M255 manages only 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 3.462 TFLOPS for the GTX 980M versus 721.9 GFLOPS for the R5 M255.

The memory configurations are entirely different: 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds are 1,038 MHz base / 1,127 MHz boost for the GTX 980M, and 925 MHz base / 940 MHz boost for the R5 M255. The GTX 980M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, while the R5 M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The GTX 980M's slot width is MXM Module, and the R5 M255 has no slot width listed. The transistor counts are 5,200 million versus 1,550 million, with die sizes of 398 mm² versus 125 mm². The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12_1, while the R5 M255 supports DirectX 12_0. Vulkan versions are 1.4 for NVIDIA and 1.2.170 for AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins in every benchmark category where both are tested. It is the clear choice for any workload that demands high compute throughput, large memory capacity, or high bandwidth. The data shows it is 412.5% ahead in OpenCL and 259.5% ahead in Vulkan. Its 8 GB memory buffer and 256-bit bus make it suitable for high-resolution textures and multi-tasking, while its 3.462 TFLOPS FP32 throughput enables compute-heavy applications.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its only advantage is indirect: it is a smaller, simpler part with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, which may imply lower manufacturing cost and thermal output, though the database does not provide power figures to confirm this. Its support for Vulkan 1.2.170 is an older version than the GTX 980M's 1.4, so it does not win in software features either.

In practical terms, the GTX 980M is for users who need a capable laptop GPU for gaming or creative work, based on its higher fill rates and memory bandwidth. The R5 M255 is for basic display output and light 2D tasks, where its 384 shading units and 32.00 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient. The recorded data offers no scenario where the R5 M255 outperforms the GTX 980M.