AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs AMD Radeon R5 M420 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two mobile graphics parts. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 records a score of 5051, while the AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956. That gives the M320 a decisive 27.7% advantage in raw compute throughput. This is not a marginal gap; it is a substantial performance separation that will show up in any OpenCL-accelerated workload.

Looking at the wider benchmark landscape, the M320's average benchmark score sits at 4657. That places it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals show how tight the competition is at this level. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB matches the M320 exactly at 4657, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 is only 0.6% ahead at 4684, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M trails by 0.6% at 4628, and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is 0.8% behind at 4621. What this means in practice is that the M320 sits in a very dense cluster of comparable mobile and low-profile desktop parts, where single-digit percentage differences separate neighbors.

The M420, by contrast, averages 3956 across its recorded benchmark runs. That places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M is 0.1% ahead at 3953, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is 0.2% ahead at 3964, and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is 0.5% ahead at 3977. The M420 is effectively locked in a dead heat with these older NVIDIA parts, which tells you it is not a GPU that stands out in its class.

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the M320 wins the only direct comparison by a wide margin. The 27.7% OpenCL delta is larger than any of the differences between either card and its nearest rivals, which means the M320 is not just slightly better, it is in a different performance tier despite sharing the same chip name.

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 are built on the same fundamental hardware. Both use the Jet chip, the GCN 1.0 architecture, and a 28 nm process node at TSMC. Both pack 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The core configs are identical as well: 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operations pipelines. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is expected for this generation.

The clock speeds are where small differences appear. The M320 runs a base clock of 780 MHz and boosts to 855 MHz. The M420 runs the same 780 MHz base clock but boosts to 850 MHz, a 5 MHz difference. That small clock advantage for the M320 translates into slightly higher peak throughput. The M320 delivers 547.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, 17.10 GTexel/s of texture fill, and 6.840 GPixel/s of pixel fill. The M420 delivers 544.0 GFLOPS, 17.00 GTexel/s, and 6.800 GPixel/s. In every throughput metric, the M320 holds a fractional edge.

Memory configuration is identical. Both cards ship with 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus, running at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective data rate, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a narrow memory bus by modern standards, and the bandwidth figure is modest, but it is equal between the two parts.

The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for both, and both are listed as IGP slot width, meaning they are integrated or soldered mobile parts with no expansion slot footprint. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both, which is typical for laptop GPUs. Neither card has a TDP listed in the database, nor a suggested PSU, nor power connectors, consistent with their integrated mobile positioning.

API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. This means software compatibility and driver feature support should be equivalent between the two.

The production status is end-of-life for both. The M320 was released on May 4, 2015, while the M420 came later on May 14, 2016. Both list the same predecessor, Solar System, and the same successor, Polaris Mobile. The generation labels differ slightly: the M320 belongs to Gem System (R5 M300), while the M420 belongs to Gem System (R5 M400). That naming tells you the M420 is the newer refresh, but the underlying silicon is essentially unchanged.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and it wins it by a lot. The 27.7% OpenCL lead means any compute task that scales with shading units and clock speed will favor the M320. That includes OpenCL-accelerated applications like video encoding filters, physics simulations, image processing, and some productivity workloads that offload to the GPU. The M320 also has a higher boost clock, 855 MHz versus 850 MHz, and higher FP32 throughput, 547.2 GFLOPS versus 544.0 GFLOPS. In practice, these differences are small on paper, but the benchmark result shows they add up to a meaningful real-world gap.

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 does not win any recorded benchmark comparison. Its only advantage is chronological: it launched about a year later in May 2016 versus May 2015. From a pure performance standpoint, it is the slower card in every measured category. Its nearest rivals, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M and GeForce GT 745M, bracket it within 0.2%, so it is competitive with those older NVIDIA parts, but it cannot match the M320.

For a user choosing between these two in a laptop, the M320 is the pick if OpenCL compute matters. The M420 is not a meaningful upgrade despite the newer generation label. The M320's wins come in raw compute throughput, pixel fill, and texture fill, while the M420's only distinction is a lower percentile rank at 23 versus the M320's 27.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 27.7% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M420's 3956.

Q: Do these two GPUs have the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Jet chip with GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Is the memory configuration different between them?

A: No, both have 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus with 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth and a 1000 MHz memory clock.

Q: How does the M320 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The M320 matches the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4657, trails the NVIDIA Quadro P400 by 0.6%, and leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M by 0.6% and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M by 0.8%.

Q: How does the M420 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The M420 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3964, while trailing the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.5%.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The M320 launched on May 4, 2015, and the M420 launched on May 14, 2016. Both are end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share nearly every specification, so the differences are narrow but measurable. The boost clock is 855 MHz on the M320 and 850 MHz on the M420. The pixel rate is 6.840 GPixel/s on the M320 versus 6.800 GPixel/s on the M420. The texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s on the M320 versus 17.00 GTexel/s on the M420. The FP32 compute is 547.2 GFLOPS on the M320 versus 544.0 GFLOPS on the M420.

The release dates differ by just over a year: May 4, 2015 for the M320 and May 14, 2016 for the M420. The generation label also differs, with the M320 listed under Gem System (R5 M300) and the M420 under Gem System (R5 M400). The average benchmark score is 4657 for the M320 and 3956 for the M420. The percentile rank is 27 for the M320 and 23 for the M420.

Everything else is identical: base clock of 780 MHz, memory clock of 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, 4 GB DDR3 on a 64 bit bus, 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, 8 ROPs, PCIe 3.0 x8, DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170, 28 nm process, 690 million transistors, 56 mm² die, 12.3M per mm² density, and IGP slot width.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the superior part. It wins the only direct benchmark by 27.7% in OpenCL, has a higher boost clock, higher FP32 throughput, higher texture rate, and higher pixel rate. It also ranks higher in the overall database at the 27th percentile versus 23rd for the M420.

The M420 offers nothing in return. It is a later release, but the silicon is the same Jet chip with the same 28 nm process and the same 690 million transistors. The 5 MHz lower boost clock and measurably lower compute throughput make it a slightly worse version of an already modest mobile GPU. Its nearest rivals, all older NVIDIA parts, sit within 0.5% of its average score, confirming it is a bottom-tier performer.

A builder or buyer choosing between these two should take the M320 without hesitation. It delivers a 27.7% OpenCL advantage, which is the largest performance gap recorded in this comparison. The M420 is only relevant if a specific laptop model forces that choice, and even then, the performance difference will be noticeable in any GPU-accelerated workload. The M320 is the stronger pick from every angle the database measures.