AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. It scores 5051 points against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M's 4934 points, a margin of 2.4%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall benchmark average?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has a higher average benchmark score of 4657 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M averages 4033 points. The AMD part also sits higher in the global percentile ranking at 27 versus 24 for the NVIDIA part.

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

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 ships with 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor count and larger die?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses the GK107 chip with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the Jet chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: What are the DirectX support levels for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and the NVIDIA part has a slightly newer Vulkan version at 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170 for AMD.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The database lists the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M with a TDP of 50 W. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has no TDP value recorded, and it is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot width, whereas the NVIDIA part is an MXM module.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M represent two fundamentally different approaches to mobile graphics from the same era. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The AMD part uses the Jet chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, belonging to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses the GK107 chip based on the Kepler architecture from the GeForce 700M generation. This chip contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, with a lower transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is nearly double the physical size and carries almost twice the transistor count.

The compute configurations differ substantially. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the NVIDIA part a clear advantage in raw pixel throughput at 8.160 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 32.64 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the NVIDIA part reaches 783.4 GFLOPS against the AMD part's 547.2 GFLOPS.

Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA. The GeForce GT 755M runs at a base clock of 980 MHz with a boost of 1020 MHz, while the Radeon R5 M320 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. Memory technology creates one of the largest divides: the AMD part uses DDR3 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, while the NVIDIA part uses GDDR5 at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus. The resulting bandwidth gap is enormous, with the NVIDIA part delivering 86.40 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s for AMD.

The bus interface also differs: the AMD Radeon R5 M320 connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both are classified as end-of-life products, with the AMD part released in May 2015 and the NVIDIA part released in June 2013. The NVIDIA part is the direct successor in the GeForce 600M line, while the AMD part succeeds the Solar System generation and is itself succeeded by Polaris Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. This is where the narrative gets interesting, because the recorded results contradict what the spec sheets suggest.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 points in Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934 points. The AMD part wins by 2.4%. This is a narrow margin, but it is a win nonetheless. Given that the NVIDIA part has higher clock speeds, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and over five times the memory bandwidth, this result is notable. The AMD part's advantage likely comes from its GCN architecture's efficiency in compute workloads, which OpenCL heavily exercises.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 also records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262 points, a test the NVIDIA part does not appear in. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has a Geekbench Metal score of 3132 points, a test the AMD part does not appear in. These platform-specific results add context but do not change the head-to-head outcome.

The average benchmark score reinforces the AMD advantage. The Radeon R5 M320 averages 4657 points across its recorded benchmarks, while the GeForce GT 755M averages 4033 points. That is a 15.5% gap in favor of AMD. The percentile rankings align with this: the AMD part sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part sits at the 24th percentile.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize each GPU's standing. The AMD Radeon R5 M320's average score of 4657 points places it exactly level with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 0% delta. It sits 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P400, 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M's average of 4033 points places it 0.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro M4150, 1% behind the Intel HD Graphics 630, 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2, and 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB.

The verdict from the recorded data is clear: despite the NVIDIA part's superior specifications on paper, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 outperforms it in the only direct comparison available. The 2.4% OpenCL victory is modest, but the average score gap is much wider, suggesting the AMD part maintains its edge across multiple workload types.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a counterintuitive conclusion. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the better performer in compute workloads despite being outgunned on every major specification. The Geekbench OpenCL result shows a 2.4% advantage for AMD, and the average benchmark score shows an even larger 15.5% gap. Users running OpenCL-based applications should prefer the AMD part based on the recorded evidence.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has its own strengths that the database makes clear. Its 86.40 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 16.00 GB/s for AMD is a massive difference that would matter in memory-intensive workloads. Its higher pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s and texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s suggest it would handle traditional graphics rendering tasks better, even if the OpenCL compute results do not reflect that. The 50 W TDP rating also gives it a defined power profile, whereas the AMD part has no recorded TDP.

The choice between these two depends on the workload. For compute tasks measured by OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins. For graphics-oriented tasks that rely on memory bandwidth and rasterization throughput, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M's specifications suggest it would be the stronger option, though the direct benchmark data does not cover this scenario. The NVIDIA part also offers a newer Vulkan version at 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170 for AMD, though both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12 (with AMD supporting the 11_1 feature level versus 11_0 for NVIDIA).

Both GPUs are end-of-life products, so the decision is likely about existing hardware rather than new purchases. For a system with the AMD Radeon R5 M320, the data shows no reason to switch to the NVIDIA part for compute workloads. For a system with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, the same applies in reverse: the data does not demonstrate that the AMD part is sufficiently faster to justify a change, especially given the NVIDIA part's substantial bandwidth advantage. The recorded performance difference is real but modest in the head-to-head test, and the average score gap comes from different benchmark sets that are not directly comparable.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M:

Chip and Architecture: AMD uses the Jet chip with GCN 1.0 architecture; NVIDIA uses the GK107 chip with Kepler architecture.

Generation: AMD belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation; NVIDIA belongs to the GeForce 700M generation.

Transistors: AMD has 690 million; NVIDIA has 1,270 million.

Die Size: AMD measures 56 mm²; NVIDIA measures 118 mm².

Transistor Density: AMD achieves 12.3M per mm²; NVIDIA achieves 10.8M per mm².

Base Clock: AMD runs at 780 MHz; NVIDIA runs at 980 MHz.

Boost Clock: AMD reaches 855 MHz; NVIDIA reaches 1020 MHz.

Memory Clock: AMD uses 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective); NVIDIA uses 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective).

Memory Size: AMD has 4 GB; NVIDIA has 2 GB.

Memory Type: AMD uses DDR3; NVIDIA uses GDDR5.

Memory Bus Width: AMD uses 64 bit; NVIDIA uses 128 bit.

Memory Bandwidth: AMD delivers 16.00 GB/s; NVIDIA delivers 86.40 GB/s.

Shading Units: AMD has 320; NVIDIA has 384.

Texture Mapping Units: AMD has 20; NVIDIA has 32.

Raster Operation Units: AMD has 8; NVIDIA has 16.

Pixel Rate: AMD achieves 6.840 GPixel/s; NVIDIA achieves 8.160 GPixel/s.

Texture Rate: AMD achieves 17.10 GTexel/s; NVIDIA achieves 32.64 GTexel/s.

FP32 Performance: AMD delivers 547.2 GFLOPS; NVIDIA delivers 783.4 GFLOPS.

TDP: AMD has no recorded value; NVIDIA is rated at 50 W.

Slot Width: AMD is classified as IGP; NVIDIA is an MXM Module.

Power Connectors: AMD has none recorded; NVIDIA has none.

Bus Interface: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8; NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

DirectX Support: AMD supports 12 (11_1); NVIDIA supports 12 (11_0).

Vulkan Support: AMD supports 1.2.170; NVIDIA supports 1.2.175.

Release Date: AMD launched May 2015; NVIDIA launched June 2013.

Predecessor: AMD's predecessor is Solar System; NVIDIA's predecessor is GeForce 600M.

Successor: AMD's successor is Polaris Mobile; NVIDIA's successor is GeForce 800M.

Benchmark Results: AMD scores 5051 in Geekbench OpenCL and 4262 in Geekbench Vulkan; NVIDIA scores 4934 in Geekbench OpenCL and 3132 in Geekbench Metal.

Average Benchmark Score: AMD averages 4657; NVIDIA averages 4033.

Percentile: AMD ranks at the 27th percentile; NVIDIA ranks at the 24th percentile.