AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA GeForce 830M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins both recorded head-to-head tests against the NVIDIA GeForce 830M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 against the GeForce 830M's 4324, a 16.8% advantage. The Vulkan test shows a similar pattern, with the AMD part scoring 4262 versus 3590 for the NVIDIA part, a slightly larger 18.7% margin. These are not marginal wins; the Radeon R5 M320 is consistently ahead by roughly one-sixth to nearly one-fifth in raw compute workloads.

Looking at the broader database context, the Radeon R5 M320's average benchmark score of 4657 places it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at an identical 4657 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684 (0.6% behind the M320), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (0.6% ahead of the M320), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (0.8% ahead). This clustering suggests the M320 sits in a tightly contested performance tier where small percentage differences separate adjacent entries.

The GeForce 830M, by contrast, averages 3957 overall, placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956 (effectively tied, 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (0.1% behind the 830M), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3964 (0.2% ahead of the 830M), and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (0.5% ahead). The 830M's average score is 700 points below the M320's average, a 17.7% gap that mirrors the individual benchmark deltas.

The data shows that the Radeon R5 M320 does not merely edge out the GeForce 830M in a single workload; it wins both recorded tests by double-digit percentages. The OpenCL margin of 16.8% and the Vulkan margin of 18.7% are consistent with each other, indicating a stable performance advantage across different compute APIs rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using the Jet chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ substantially: the AMD chip contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip packs 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter.

The Radeon R5 M320 belongs to the Gem System generation (R5 M300 series), while the GeForce 830M is part of the GeForce 800M generation. The AMD part's predecessor is the Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is the GeForce 700M, and its successor is the GeForce 900M. Both GPUs are marked as end-of-life production status.

Clock speeds differ notably. The Radeon R5 M320 runs at a base clock of 780 MHz with a boost clock of 855 MHz. The GeForce 830M runs significantly higher: 1082 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost. The memory clocks also differ: the AMD part's memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA part's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The API support shows interesting divergences. Both support DirectX 12, but the Radeon R5 M320 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GeForce 830M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. For Vulkan, the Radeon R5 M320 supports version 1.2.170, while the GeForce 830M supports version 1.4, a newer specification revision.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data gives the Radeon R5 M320 a clear sweep: it wins both head-to-head tests, meaning it claims 2 wins out of 2 possible. The GeForce 830M records 0 wins in this comparison. This is a decisive result for the AMD part in compute-oriented workloads.

However, the architecture data suggests areas where the GeForce 830M could be expected to have advantages that are not captured in the two recorded benchmarks. The NVIDIA part operates at substantially higher clock speeds: its base clock of 1082 MHz is 38.7% higher than the AMD part's 780 MHz, and its boost clock of 1150 MHz is 34.5% higher than the AMD part's 855 MHz. These higher clocks are reflected in the pixel rate and texture rate figures: the GeForce 830M achieves 9.200 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s for the Radeon R5 M320, and 18.40 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. The pixel rate advantage is particularly pronounced at 34.5%.

The GeForce 830M also has a higher FP32 compute rating at 588.8 GFLOPS, compared to 547.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon R5 M320, a 7.6% difference. This is notable because the AMD part has more shading units (320 versus 256) and more texture mapping units (20 versus 16), but the NVIDIA part compensates with its higher clock speeds. The ROP count is equal at 8 for both.

The Radeon R5 M320 counters with a larger memory capacity: 4 GB versus 2 GB for the GeForce 830M. The AMD part also has higher memory bandwidth at 16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a margin of 11.1%. Both use DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

In practical terms, the Radeon R5 M320 wins compute benchmarks decisively, while the GeForce 830M shows theoretical advantages in pixel throughput, texture throughput, and raw FP32 peak. The database measurements, however, only record the compute tests, and in those the AMD part is ahead.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications. The Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The GeForce 830M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part leads in shading units and TMUs, while ROP counts are identical.

Memory configurations differ: the Radeon R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory, while the GeForce 830M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory. Both use a 64-bit memory bus. The AMD part's bandwidth is 16.00 GB/s, versus 14.40 GB/s for the NVIDIA part.

Clock speeds favor the NVIDIA part: the GeForce 830M runs at 1082 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost, compared to 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost for the Radeon R5 M320. The memory clocks also differ: the AMD part's memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA part's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Transistor counts and die sizes differ: the Radeon R5 M320 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the GeForce 830M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density favors the NVIDIA part at 13.2 million per mm² versus 12.3 million per mm².

The power draw specification is only recorded for the GeForce 830M at 33 W TDP. The Radeon R5 M320 has no TDP listed in the database. Both are IGP slot width with portable device dependent display outputs and PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interfaces. The GeForce 830M lists no power connectors, while the Radeon R5 M320 has no power connector data.

Release dates differ: the Radeon R5 M320 was released on 2015-05-04, while the GeForce 830M was released earlier on 2014-03-11. The Vulkan API support differs, with the GeForce 830M supporting version 1.4 versus version 1.2.170 for the Radeon R5 M320.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins both recorded tests. It beats the NVIDIA GeForce 830M by 16.8% in Geekbench OpenCL (5051 versus 4324) and by 18.7% in Geekbench Vulkan (4262 versus 3590).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Radeon R5 M320 has an average benchmark score of 4657, placing it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. The GeForce 830M averages 3957, placing it in the 24th percentile. The AMD part's average is 700 points higher.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The Radeon R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 830M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The GeForce 830M runs at 1082 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost clocks. The Radeon R5 M320 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost clocks. The NVIDIA part's memory runs at 900 MHz, while the AMD part's memory runs at 1000 MHz.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The Radeon R5 M320 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The GeForce 830M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The NVIDIA part achieves a higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm² for the AMD part.

Q: What API versions do they support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. For DirectX 12, the Radeon R5 M320 supports version 11_1, while the GeForce 830M supports version 11_0. For Vulkan, the AMD part supports 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA part supports 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in compute benchmarks: the AMD Radeon R5 M320. It wins both head-to-head tests with margins of 16.8% and 18.7%, has a higher average benchmark score (4657 versus 3957), and sits at a higher percentile ranking (27th versus 24th). Its nearest rival in the database is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at an identical 4657 average, while the GeForce 830M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956.

For users whose workloads are dominated by OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks, the Radeon R5 M320 is the stronger choice. Its 4 GB memory capacity and higher bandwidth (16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) also give it an edge for memory-intensive operations. The GeForce 830M, however, offers higher clock speeds (1082 MHz base versus 780 MHz) and a higher peak FP32 rating (588.8 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS). Its pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s is 34.5% higher than the AMD part's 6.840 GPixel/s, which could translate to advantages in certain rasterization-bound scenarios, though the database does not record such tests for this pair.

The GeForce 830M also has a higher transistor density (13.2M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm²) and newer Vulkan API support (1.4 versus 1.2.170). These factors suggest the NVIDIA part may be more efficient per transistor and better positioned for newer Vulkan applications, despite losing the recorded benchmarks.

The verdict is straightforward from the measurements: the Radeon R5 M320 is the faster GPU in the two compute tests that the database records. The GeForce 830M holds theoretical advantages in clock speed and peak throughput rates, but those do not translate into wins in the benchmark data. Users prioritizing OpenCL or Vulkan performance should favor the AMD part. Users who value newer Vulkan API support or higher pixel throughput may prefer the GeForce 830M, but they should be aware that its average benchmark score is 700 points lower, and it loses both head-to-head tests by double-digit percentages.