AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs AMD Radeon R5 M330 Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD Radeon R5 M330 are both end-of-life mobile integrated graphics parts from the Gem System (R5 M300) generation, built on the same 28 nm GCN 1.0 architecture with identical 690 million transistor counts and 56 mm² die sizes. The database shows the M320 holds a clear performance edge in both recorded benchmarks, but the M330 counters with higher clock speeds and a lower listed power draw, making the choice between them dependent on whether raw compute or efficiency matters more for the specific laptop use case.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins on raw performance in every benchmark recorded in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M320 scores 5051 against the M330’s 4302, a 17.4% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the M320 scores 4262 against 4037, a 5.6% lead. These are the only two tests in the head-to-head data, and the M320 wins both, giving it a 2-0 record. The average benchmark score reflects this: the M320 sits at 4657, while the M330 trails at 4170. The M320 also ranks at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, two points higher than the M330’s 25th percentile, meaning the M320 lands in a slightly stronger overall position in the database’s distribution.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins on clock speed and power efficiency. Its base clock is 955 MHz, which is 175 MHz higher than the M320’s 780 MHz, and its boost clock reaches 1030 MHz versus 855 MHz on the M320. The M330 also has a listed TDP of 18 W, while the M320 has no TDP figure recorded. The M330’s memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, slightly slower than the M320’s 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, but the higher core clocks allow the M330 to achieve faster pixel and texture rates: 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s, respectively, compared to 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s on the M320. For workloads that scale with core frequency rather than memory bandwidth, the M330’s architecture suggests it could close the gap, though the recorded benchmarks do not reflect that outcome.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Radeon R5 M320 if you need the higher compute throughput. The data shows it is 17.4% faster in OpenCL and 5.6% faster in Vulkan, and its average benchmark score of 4657 puts it roughly on par with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (0% delta) and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (0.6% delta). The M320’s 4 GB memory capacity is double the M330’s 2 GB, which matters for workloads that exceed the smaller frame buffer.

Pick the AMD Radeon R5 M330 if you prioritize lower power draw and higher clock speeds. The M330’s 18 W TDP is the only power figure recorded between the two, and its base and boost clocks are 22% and 20% higher, respectively, than the M320’s. The M330’s average benchmark score of 4170 sits close to the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (0.4% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (-0.5% delta), so it is not far behind the M320 in absolute terms, but it consumes less power per the recorded specification. For laptops where thermal headroom is tight, the M330 is the safer choice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the M320 comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the 5051 score beats the M330’s 4302 by 749 points, a 17.4% delta. This is a substantial margin for two GPUs with identical shader counts, TMUs, and ROPs; the difference comes from the M320’s faster memory clock (1000 MHz versus 900 MHz) and wider effective data rate (2 Gbps versus 1800 Mbps), which yields 16.00 GB/s bandwidth against 14.40 GB/s. The OpenCL test appears sensitive to memory throughput, and the M320’s 11.1% bandwidth advantage translates directly into the score lead.

The Vulkan test is closer. The M320 scores 4262 against 4037, a 225-point difference that represents only a 5.6% delta. Vulkan’s lower overhead likely reduces the impact of memory bandwidth, allowing the M330’s higher core clocks (1030 MHz boost versus 855 MHz) to narrow the gap. Still, the M320 wins, and the data does not record any benchmark where the M330 overtakes the M320.

For context, the M320’s average score of 4657 places it between the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684, -0.6% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, 0.8% delta). The M330’s average score of 4170 places it between the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, 1.9% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241, -1.7% delta). The M320’s nearest rivals are all higher-end parts, while the M330’s nearest rivals are a mix of older Quadro and desktop-class cards, reflecting the M330’s lower standing in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320, with an average benchmark score of 4657, compared to the M330’s 4170.

Q: What is the performance difference in OpenCL?

A: The M320 scores 5051 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17.4% higher than the M330’s 4302.

Q: Does the M330 have any advantage in clock speed?

A: Yes. The M330 has a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, while the M320 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory, while the M330 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory. Both use a 64-bit bus.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The M330 has a listed TDP of 18 W, while the M320 has no TDP figure recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: GCN 1.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The chip names differ: the M320 uses the Jet chip, while the M330 uses the Exo chip. Despite this naming difference, the compute core is identical: 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The memory type is DDR3 for both, and the bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for both.

The key architectural difference lies in the clock implementation and memory configuration. The M320 runs its memory at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, while the M330 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. This gives the M320 a memory bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s on the M330. However, the M330’s core clocks are significantly higher, which drives its pixel rate to 8.240 GPixel/s and texture rate to 20.60 GTexel/s, both above the M320’s 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput reflects this: the M330 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS, while the M320 delivers 547.2 GFLOPS. The M330 also has a recorded TDP of 18 W and no power connectors, while the M320 has no power or TDP data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on several specification fields. The M320 uses the Jet chip, while the M330 uses the Exo chip. Clock speeds: the M320 has a 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost, while the M330 has a 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. Memory: the M320 has 4 GB at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, while the M330 has 2 GB at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. Memory bandwidth: 16.00 GB/s for the M320 versus 14.40 GB/s for the M330. Pixel rate: 6.840 GPixel/s for the M320 versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the M330. Texture rate: 17.10 GTexel/s for the M320 versus 20.60 GTexel/s for the M330. FP32 performance: 547.2 GFLOPS for the M320 versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the M330. The M330 has a TDP of 18 W and power connectors listed as none, while the M320 has neither field populated. Both GPUs share the same process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, bus interface, display outputs, API support, production status, release date, predecessor, and successor. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.