AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs AMD Radeon R7 M445 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between these two mobile graphics parts: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051. That yields a 6.1% advantage for the R7 M445, a meaningful but not overwhelming gap in compute throughput.

Placing the R7 M445 in its competitive context, its score of 5358 sits within a tight cluster of rivals. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 averages 5370, which is 0.2% higher, making the R7 M445 essentially tied with that integrated solution. Against the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, which averages 5322, the R7 M445 leads by 0.7%. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A trails by a similar margin, scoring 5317 on average, a 0.8% deficit relative to the R7 M445. Even the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, a high-end part from a different tier, records an average of 5308, putting the R7 M445 0.9% ahead in this specific workload.

The R5 M320, with its OpenCL score of 5051, faces a different competitive landscape. The database shows its average benchmark score at 4657, which is dragged down by a second recorded test: Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 4262. In terms of nearest rivals for the average score, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB matches it exactly at 4657, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 averages 4684, which is 0.6% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, averaging 4628, trails the R5 M320 by 0.6%, and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, at 4621, is 0.8% behind. These narrow deltas indicate that in its average performance tier, the R5 M320 is surrounded by a broad mix of integrated and discrete parts.

When comparing the two AMD parts directly, the R7 M445's 6.1% lead in OpenCL is the only head-to-head data point. The R5 M320 has no recorded wins against the R7 M445. The wins tally is 1 for the R7 M445 and 0 for the R5 M320. It is notably the R5 M320 does have a Vulkan score, while the R7 M445's benchmark record contains only OpenCL, so the Vulkan result cannot be used for a direct comparison between them.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M445 wins decisively in the compute-oriented OpenCL benchmark. Its 5358 score reflects a higher peak throughput capability. The underlying specifications support this: the R7 M445 runs at a boost clock of 920 MHz, while the R5 M320 boosts to only 855 MHz. The R7 M445 also uses GDDR5 memory operating at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), delivering a memory bandwidth of 32.00 GB/s. In contrast, the R5 M320 uses DDR3 memory at the same 1000 MHz base but only 2 Gbps effective, halving the bandwidth to 16.00 GB/s. Both parts share the same 64-bit memory bus, but the memory type difference is decisive.

The R7 M445's pixel rate is 7.360 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 18.40 GTexel/s. The R5 M320, with its lower clocks, achieves a pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.10 GTexel/s. That means the R7 M445 is 7.6% faster in pixel fill and 7.6% faster in texture fill, matching the clock ratio closely.

For floating-point compute, the R7 M445 delivers 588.8 GFLOPS in FP32, whereas the R5 M320 delivers 547.2 GFLOPS. That is a 7.6% advantage for the R7 M445, again consistent with the clock differential. The R7 M445 also has a recorded FP16 throughput of 588.8 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the R5 M320 has no FP16 data in the database.

Where the R5 M320 shows any potential edge is in API compatibility for Vulkan. It has a recorded Vulkan score of 4262, and both parts support Vulkan 1.2.170. However, the DirectX support differs: the R7 M445 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M320 supports only DirectX 12 (11_1). That means the R7 M445 has access to a higher feature level in DirectX 12, which could matter for certain games or workloads that require 12_0 features.

For use cases, the R7 M445 is the better choice for any task that relies on raw compute, such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, physics simulation, or general-purpose GPU computing. Its higher memory bandwidth and clock speeds give it a clear advantage. The R5 M320, while slower, still offers the same 4 GB memory capacity, 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. So for basic display output, video playback, or light 2D acceleration, the R5 M320 remains functional, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the R7 M445.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded measurements, the AMD Radeon R7 M445 is the superior part. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark by 6.1% in OpenCL, and its average benchmark score of 5358 places it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, compared to the R5 M320's 27th percentile and average score of 4657.

Users who need maximum compute throughput for OpenCL workloads should select the R7 M445. Its 32.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, GDDR5 memory, and 920 MHz boost clock provide measurable advantages in fill rates and floating-point operations. The R7 M445 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), which is a higher feature level than the R5 M320's DirectX 12 (11_1), making it more future-proof for newer DirectX 12 titles.

The R5 M320 is a weaker alternative. Its DDR3 memory at 16.00 GB/s bandwidth is exactly half that of the R7 M445. Its boost clock of 855 MHz is lower, and its compute throughput is 547.2 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS. There is no benchmark in the database where the R5 M320 beats the R7 M445. However, the R5 M320 does have a Vulkan score of 4262, which is absent for the R7 M445, so for Vulkan-specific workloads, the R5 M320 at least has a recorded baseline, whereas no such data exists for the R7 M445.

Neither card is recommended for high-end gaming or demanding workloads. Both sit in the 27th to 31st percentile range, indicating they are entry-level mobile parts. The R7 M445 is competitive with parts like the Intel UHD Graphics P630, NVIDIA GeForce 840M, and NVIDIA GeForce 930A, all within 1% of each other. The R5 M320 sits in a similarly tight pack with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, NVIDIA Quadro P400, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, all within 1% of its average score.

For a laptop buyer, the R7 M445 is the pick if the choice is between these two. The 6.1% OpenCL advantage is real and consistent with the hardware differences. The R5 M320 should only be considered if the system price or availability forces it, but from a pure performance standpoint, the data does not support that choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 6.1% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M320's score of 5051.

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

A: The R7 M445 has a memory bandwidth of 32.00 GB/s using GDDR5 memory, while the R5 M320 has 16.00 GB/s using DDR3 memory. Both use a 64-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The R7 M445 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M320 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The R7 M445 has a higher feature level.

Q: What is the boost clock speed for each GPU?

A: The R7 M445 has a boost clock of 920 MHz, while the R5 M320 has a boost clock of 855 MHz. The base clock is 780 MHz for both.

Q: Does the R5 M320 have any benchmark where it beats the R7 M445?

A: No. In the only direct comparison (Geekbench OpenCL), the R7 M445 wins. The R5 M320 does have a Vulkan score of 4262, but the R7 M445 has no recorded Vulkan score, so no comparison is possible.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to NVIDIA competitors?

A: The R7 M445 is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 930A. The R5 M320 is 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, based on average scores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's GCN architecture. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 uses GCN 3.0, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses GCN 1.0. This architectural gap explains several of the measured differences.

The R7 M445 is built on the Meso chip, while the R5 M320 uses the Jet chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ significantly. The Meso chip contains 1,550 million transistors on a die size of 125 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.4 million per mm². The Jet chip is much smaller, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, resulting in a density of 12.3 million per mm². The density is nearly identical, but the R7 M445's chip is more than twice the size in both transistor count and die area.

Both parts have identical core configurations: 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The difference lies in clock speeds and memory. The R7 M445's base clock is 780 MHz, same as the R5 M320, but its boost clock is 920 MHz versus 855 MHz. The memory clock is 1000 MHz for both, but the effective data rate is 4 Gbps for the R7 M445's GDDR5 and 2 Gbps for the R5 M320's DDR3. This doubles the memory bandwidth from 16.00 GB/s to 32.00 GB/s.

The compute capabilities follow the clocks. The R7 M445 achieves a pixel rate of 7.360 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 18.40 GTexel/s. The R5 M320 manages 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 throughput is 588.8 GFLOPS for the R7 M445 and 547.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M320. The R7 M445 also has FP16 performance at 588.8 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the R5 M320 has no FP16 data recorded.

Both GPUs are integrated parts (IGP slot width) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, and both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. They support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX support differs, as noted: the R7 M445 is at DirectX 12 (12_0), and the R5 M320 is at DirectX 12 (11_1).

The R7 M445 was released on 2016-05-14, while the R5 M320 came earlier on 2015-05-04. Both are end-of-life products, and both belong to the Gem System generation, with the R7 M445 in the R7 M400 series and the R5 M320 in the R5 M300 series. Their predecessor is Solar System, and their successor is Polaris Mobile.

In summary, the R7 M445 is the newer, larger, and faster part. The architectural leap from GCN 1.0 to GCN 3.0, combined with GDDR5 memory and higher clocks, gives it a consistent advantage across every measured metric. The R5 M320 is a smaller, older design that shares the same core count but is hamstrung by slower memory and lower boost clocks.