AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs AMD Radeon R5 M430 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 and AMD Radeon R5 M320 are nearly identical on paper, sharing the same chip, architecture, and clock speeds, but benchmark results show the M430 holds a consistent edge. The M430 wins both head-to-head tests, with its largest advantage coming in Vulkan performance, where it leads by 14.6%. The M320, meanwhile, sits in a lower performance percentile overall, making the M430 the stronger choice for users who prioritize compute workloads, though the M320 remains a functional alternative in the same class.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if modest, winner in the AMD Radeon R5 M430. Across the two head-to-head benchmark tests, the M430 takes both victories: a 2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (5152 vs 5051) and a substantial 14.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan (4884 vs 4262). The average benchmark score reinforces this, with the M430 at 5018 against the M320’s 4657, a difference of roughly 7.7%. For anyone choosing strictly between these two, the M430 is the superior part.

The M320’s position is not without merit. Its average score of 4657 places it at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, and it ties exactly with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB in average score, showing it holds its own in a specific performance bracket. However, the M430’s 30th percentile ranking, while only three points higher, comes with better raw numbers in every measured test. The verdict is straightforward: the M430 for better compute performance, the M320 only if the specific unit is available at a system level, since the specs are otherwise identical.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the exact same foundation. They use the "Jet" chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. The transistor count is identical at 690 million, and the die size is the same at 56 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.3M / mm² for both. The generational label differs—the M430 belongs to "Gem System (R5 M400)" while the M320 belongs to "Gem System (R5 M300)"—but the underlying silicon shows no architectural divergence.

Clock speeds are a mirror image: both run at a base of 780 MHz and a boost of 855 MHz, with memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The memory subsystem is also identical: 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Shading units number 320 on each, with 20 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs. The pixel rate is 6.840 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s for both. FP32 performance matches at 547.2 GFLOPS. API support is the same, including DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The only practical difference in architecture is the release timeline. The M320 has a release date of 2015-05-04, while the M430 has no listed release date, suggesting it arrived later in the product cycle. Both are marked as end-of-life, with the same predecessor ("Solar System") and successor ("Polaris Mobile"). The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for both, and both are IGP slot width with portable-device-dependent display outputs. In short, the architecture is identical; the performance gap comes from firmware or driver tuning, not hardware changes.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M430, with an average score of 5018, beats the M320’s 4657. This places the M430 at the 30th percentile of all GPUs versus the M320’s 27th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the M430 in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the M430 scores 4884 against the M320’s 4262, a lead of 14.6%. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any test.

Q: Are the clock speeds different between the two GPUs?

A: No. Both run at a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. Memory clocks are also the same at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the memory configuration for both cards?

A: Both have 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. There is no difference in memory size, type, or bandwidth.

Q: Is there a difference in the number of shading units?

A: No. Both the M430 and M320 feature 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The compute resources are identical on paper.

Q: Does the M320 have any benchmark win over the M430?

A: The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the M320. The M430 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests.

Specification Differences

The specification tables for the AMD Radeon R5 M430 and AMD Radeon R5 M320 are nearly identical, but a few fields distinguish them. The most notable is the generation label: the M430 is listed under "Gem System (R5 M400)" while the M320 is under "Gem System (R5 M300)". This is a naming difference rather than a hardware one.

The release date is another differentiator. The M320 has a known release date of 2015-05-04, while the M430 has no release date listed in the data. This implies the M430 came later, but the absence of a date prevents a precise comparison. Both share the same chip ("Jet"), architecture (GCN 1.0), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (690 million), die size (56 mm²), and transistor density (12.3M / mm²).

Clock speeds are identical across the board: base 780 MHz, boost 855 MHz, and memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Memory size, type, and bandwidth match exactly: 4 GB DDR3, 64-bit bus, 16.00 GB/s. The compute units are the same: 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, 8 ROPs. Pixel rate (6.840 GPixel/s), texture rate (17.10 GTexel/s), and FP32 (547.2 GFLOPS) are all equal. The bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), slot width (IGP), and display outputs (portable-device-dependent) are also the same.

The API support is another point of parity: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 for both. There are no differences in TDP, power connectors, or suggested PSU, as these fields are null for both. In summary, the only specification differences are the generation name and the release date; every other hardware specification is a match.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a consistent advantage for the AMD Radeon R5 M430, but the magnitude varies significantly by test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M430 scores 5152 against the M320’s 5051, a narrow 2% lead. This is a close result—within the range of run-to-run variance—but it still favors the M430. The nearest rival data for the M430 puts this score in context: the AMD FirePro W4170M is 0.3% higher at 5034, and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 is 0.9% higher at 5063, showing the M430 is competitive but not class-leading in OpenCL.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. The M430 scores 4884, while the M320 manages only 4262, a 14.6% delta that is far too large to ignore. This is the defining benchmark difference between the two. The M430’s Vulkan result is likely a product of newer driver optimizations for the M400 generation, even though the hardware is the same. For the M320, the Vulkan score of 4262 is a weak point relative to its OpenCL result, suggesting its older generation firmware does not translate compute efficiency into graphics API performance as effectively.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the M430’s 5018 is 7.7% higher than the M320’s 4657. The M430’s nearest rivals cluster tightly around its average: the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5034 (-0.3%), the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5063 (-0.9%), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998 (+0.4%). The M320’s rivals are a different set, including the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684 (-0.6%) and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (+0.8%), but the key takeaway is that the M320 sits in a lower performance tier overall.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins in every benchmark category measured, so its advantage is broad rather than niche. The biggest win is in Vulkan-based workloads, where the 14.6% lead (4884 vs 4262) makes it the clear choice for any application that leverages the Vulkan API. This includes modern game engines and compute frameworks that prioritize low-overhead GPU access. The M430 also edges out the M320 in OpenCL, with a 2% lead (5152 vs 5051), which covers a wide range of general-purpose compute tasks like video encoding, image processing, and scientific simulations. For users running mixed workloads, the M430’s higher average score of 5018 versus 4657 means it is the safer bet across the board.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data, but it is not without a use case. Its identical specifications to the M430—same 320 shading units, same clock speeds, same 4 GB DDR3 memory—mean that in systems where the M320 is pre-installed, it will deliver the same baseline capability as the M430 for most tasks. The M320’s average score of 4657 ties it exactly with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, indicating it performs at a known baseline. For users who already have a laptop or system with the M320, the data shows there is no urgent reason to upgrade to the M430 unless Vulkan performance is a critical bottleneck, since the OpenCL difference is only 2%. The M320 is also the only one of the two with a confirmed release date (2015-05-04), which may matter for legacy system compatibility, but from a pure performance standpoint, the M430 is the winner in every measured category.