AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M occupy the same 27th percentile in the database, yet their benchmark scores tell a story of two entirely different performance tiers. The data shows a clear and substantial performance gulf between these two mobile graphics processors, despite their identical percentile ranking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are starkly one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 18,946, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 manages just 5,051. That represents a 73.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part, meaning the GTX 970M delivers roughly four times the compute performance. The Vulkan results are even more lopsided: the GTX 970M posts 18,292 against the R5 M320's 4,262, a 76.7% delta. These are not marginal differences; they indicate the GTX 970M operates in a completely different performance class.

The average benchmark scores confirm this pattern. The R5 M320 averages 4,657 across its tested workloads, while the GTX 970M averages 4,628. Interestingly, these averages are nearly identical, which explains their shared percentile ranking. However, the GTX 970M's average is pulled down by a wide range of tests, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 Passmark scores that are all relatively low numbers (99, 28, 42, and 24 respectively). The R5 M320 simply lacks these additional test results, so its average is based on only two compute-oriented benchmarks. This discrepancy suggests the percentile system may not fully capture the GTX 970M's real-world dominance in graphics workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the R5 M320 sits exactly level with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 0% delta, and is only 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P400. The GTX 970M, meanwhile, is 0.2% ahead of the Quadro M3000M and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M230. These rival comparisons place both cards in the same general performance neighborhood, but the head-to-head numbers reveal that the GTX 970M's breadth of capabilities far exceeds what the R5 M320 can offer.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, with no wins for the AMD Radeon R5 M320. Anyone considering these two GPUs for gaming or graphics-intensive work should choose the GTX 970M without hesitation. The 76.7% advantage in Vulkan and 73.3% advantage in OpenCL represent enormous real-world performance differences.

That said, the identical 27th percentile ranking and nearly identical average scores suggest that in the broader context of all GPUs, neither card is a standout performer. The R5 M320 might be acceptable for basic display output or light compute tasks, but the benchmark evidence shows it cannot handle demanding workloads. The GTX 970M, despite being older (released in October 2014 versus May 2015 for the R5 M320), delivers vastly superior compute throughput. For any user prioritizing graphics performance, the choice is clear from the data alone.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is immense. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed "Jet," part of the "Gem System" generation. It is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, in contrast, employs Maxwell 2.0 architecture on the GM204 chip from the GeForce 900M generation. It also uses TSMC's 28 nm process but packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.1 million per square millimeter.

These architectural differences translate directly into compute resources. The R5 M320 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That is exactly four times the shading units and TMUs, and six times the ROPs. The pixel rate tells the story: the GTX 970M achieves 49.82 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s for the R5 M320. Texture rate similarly favors NVIDIA, at 83.04 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute output is 2.657 TFLOPS for the GTX 970M versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M320 — a nearly five-fold difference.

The API support also differs. The R5 M320 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version on the NVIDIA part suggest better compatibility with modern graphics APIs.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds show the GTX 970M running significantly faster. Its base clock is 924 MHz with a boost of 1038 MHz, while the R5 M320 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. Memory configurations are wildly different: the R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth and 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) memory clock. The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth and 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) memory clock. The bandwidth difference is particularly striking — the GTX 970M has 7.5 times the memory bandwidth of the R5 M320.

Physical specifications also diverge. The R5 M320 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of "IGP," while the GTX 970M is an MXM module with no power connectors listed. The bus interface differs as well: the R5 M320 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 970M uses MXM-B (3.0). Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. Neither card has a listed launch MSRP. The R5 M320's predecessor is "Solar System" and successor is "Polaris Mobile," while the GTX 970M's predecessor is "GeForce 800M" and successor is "GeForce 10 Mobile." Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher benchmark scores in the head-to-head tests?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M wins both head-to-head benchmarks. It scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5,051 for the AMD Radeon R5 M320, and 18,292 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4,262.

Q: What is the percentage difference in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The GTX 970M leads by 76.7% in the Geekbench Vulkan test, with the R5 M320 trailing significantly.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R5 M320 has an average benchmark score of 4,657, while the GTX 970M averages 4,628. These are within 0.6% of each other, explaining their shared 27th percentile ranking.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The R5 M320 has 16.00 GB/s bandwidth with 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, while the GTX 970M has 120.3 GB/s bandwidth with 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: How do the shading unit counts differ?

A: The R5 M320 has 320 shading units, while the GTX 970M has 1,280. The GTX 970M also has 80 TMUs versus 20, and 48 ROPs versus 8.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The GTX 970M delivers 2.657 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 547.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M320.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M wins in every measurable benchmark category from the data. Its 2,657 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, 49.82 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 83.04 GTexel/s texture rate make it suitable for demanding gaming, 3D rendering, and GPU-accelerated compute workloads. The 120.3 GB/s memory bandwidth supports high-resolution textures and complex scenes. The 6 GB of GDDR5 memory provides ample capacity for modern game assets. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility suggest it can handle more recent graphics APIs effectively.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its 547.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance and 16.00 GB/s memory bandwidth indicate it is suited only for basic display output, light productivity tasks, or legacy applications that do not demand significant GPU resources. Its 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus severely limits data throughput. The R5 M320 might serve as a power-efficient solution for basic computing, but the benchmark data provides no scenario where it outperforms the GTX 970M.

For users with older or less demanding software, the R5 M320's lower specifications could theoretically suffice, but the 73-77% benchmark deficits leave no practical use case where it is the better choice. The GTX 970M's dominance across compute, graphics, and memory bandwidth makes it the only rational pick from the available data, despite its earlier release date. The identical percentile rankings are a statistical artifact of limited test coverage, not evidence of comparable real-world performance.