AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data in this comparison is stark. Across the two recorded tests, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins outright, with no recorded victories for the AMD Radeon R5 M320. The margin of victory is substantial in both cases, but the nature of the tests reveals different aspects of the performance gap.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance across a wide range of workloads, the GTX 980M scores 23,832 points. The R5 M320 manages only 5,051 points. This represents a delta of 371.8% in favor of the NVIDIA part. To put that into perspective, the GTX 980M delivers nearly four times the raw compute throughput of the AMD chip in this particular workload. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and architectural chasm expressed in a single number.

The second recorded benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a similar pattern but with a slightly narrower gap. The GTX 980M scores 17,703 points, while the R5 M320 trails at 4,262 points. The delta here is 315.4%. While Vulkan is a lower-level API that can sometimes mitigate architectural inefficiencies, the sheer difference in hardware resources between these two GPUs overwhelms any software-level optimization. The NVIDIA part still outperforms the AMD part by a factor of more than four.

Looking at the broader database averages reinforces this narrative. The GTX 980M holds an average benchmark score of 5,308 points across all recorded tests. The R5 M320 has an average score of 4,657 points. While this overall average gap is smaller than the head-to-head deltas, it is important to note that the R5 M320 only has two recorded benchmarks in the database, both of which are the same Geekbench tests listed above. Its average is therefore pulled directly from those two low scores. The GTX 980M, with ten recorded benchmarks, has a more diversified profile, but its average still places it well ahead of the AMD part in the database rankings.

The percentile rankings also tell a story. The GTX 980M sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R5 M320 sits in the 27th percentile. This indicates that while both are below the median, the NVIDIA part is positioned notably higher in the overall performance distribution. The nearest rivals for the GTX 980M in the database are all within a 0.9% delta: the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (average score 5,317, delta -0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (average score 5,322, delta -0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (average score 5,284, delta 0.5%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (average score 5,358, delta -0.9%). This cluster of scores around 5,300 points shows that the GTX 980M is competitive with, though not dominant over, its direct peers from the same era.

For the R5 M320, the nearest rivals are a more eclectic group. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB has an identical average score of 4,657 points (delta 0%), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4,684 (delta -0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 4,628 (delta 0.6%), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 4,621 (delta 0.8%). The presence of the RX 9060 XT, a modern card, at the exact same average score suggests that the R5 M320's benchmark results are heavily influenced by its limited test count and the specific nature of those tests. In raw head-to-head terms, however, there is no ambiguity: the GTX 980M is the clear winner.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is straightforward based on the available data. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins every recorded benchmark category where both cards have results. This includes both OpenCL compute and Vulkan graphics workloads. The data indicates that the GTX 980M is the superior choice for any task that leverages general-purpose GPU computing or modern graphics APIs. Its 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power, combined with 1,536 shading units, provides a massive parallel processing advantage over the AMD part.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320, by contrast, wins nowhere in the recorded head-to-head data. However, it is notably the R5 M320 has no recorded results for the DirectX benchmarks (Passmark tests) that the GTX 980M has. The GTX 980M has scores for Passmark DirectX 9 (125 points), DirectX 10 (35 points), DirectX 11 (57 points), and DirectX 12 (31 points), as well as Passmark G2D (490 points), G3D (7,338 points), and GPU compute (2,816 points). The R5 M320 lacks these entries entirely, meaning the database does not capture its performance in older API workloads or 2D tasks.

What this means in practice is that the R5 M320 is likely suited for basic display output and very light 2D work, but the recorded data provides no evidence of its capability in those areas. The GTX 980M, with its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, offers 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for high-resolution textures and complex scenes. The R5 M320, with 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, provides only 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth, a tenfold difference that will bottleneck any memory-intensive workload. For gaming, content creation, or any compute-heavy application, the GTX 980M is the only viable option based on this data. The R5 M320 appears to be a basic entry-level mobile part, likely intended for office productivity and media playback, not for demanding graphics tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental and explains the performance disparity. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is built on the GM204 chip, using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 5,200 million transistors packed into a 398 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The large die size and high transistor count enable a massive array of compute resources: 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320, in contrast, uses the Jet chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, from the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. It is also built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but with only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. This is a far smaller and simpler chip, with just 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The sheer scale difference, roughly 7.5 times more transistors in the NVIDIA part, dictates the performance gap.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The GTX 980M runs at a base clock of 1038 MHz with a boost clock of 1127 MHz. The R5 M320 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. When combined with the vastly different shading unit counts, the fill rates diverge dramatically. The GTX 980M achieves a pixel rate of 72.13 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 108.2 GTexel/s, while the R5 M320 manages only 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s. FP32 compute performance is 3.462 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part, a ratio of roughly 6.3 to 1.

Memory architecture further widens the gap. The GTX 980M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 160.4 GB/s bandwidth with an effective memory clock of 5 Gbps. The R5 M320 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with an effective clock of 2 Gbps and just 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. GDDR5 memory is inherently higher bandwidth than DDR3, and the wider bus amplifies that advantage. The R5 M320's memory subsystem is a severe bottleneck, limiting its ability to feed even its modest compute resources.

The feature sets also differ in API support. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R5 M320 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a reduced feature level, along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part has a more modern Vulkan implementation and a higher DirectX feature level. The GTX 980M also uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and is a slot-width MXM module, while the R5 M320 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) using PCIe 3.0 x8. This form factor difference reflects their intended use: the GTX 980M is a discrete, replaceable mobile graphics module for high-performance laptops, while the R5 M320 is a low-power integrated solution soldered to the motherboard.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M has an average benchmark score of 5,308, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 has an average score of 4,657.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 980M scores 23,832 points, which is 371.8% higher than the R5 M320's score of 5,051 points.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M320 win any recorded benchmark against the GTX 980M?

A: No, the head-to-head data shows 2 wins for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and 0 wins for the AMD Radeon R5 M320.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The GTX 980M has a memory bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s, while the R5 M320 has only 16.00 GB/s, a tenfold difference.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The GTX 980M's GM204 chip contains 5,200 million transistors, while the R5 M320's Jet chip contains 690 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database?

A: The GTX 980M is in the 31st percentile, while the R5 M320 is in the 27th percentile.

Specification Differences

The specifications below highlight the fields where the two GPUs differ.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M | AMD Radeon R5 M320 |

|---------------|-------------------------|--------------------|

| Manufacturer | NVIDIA | AMD |

| Chip | GM204 | Jet |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 900M | Gem System (R5 M300) |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1038 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1127 MHz | 855 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 320 |

| TMUs | 96 | 20 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 72.13 GPixel/s | 6.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 108.2 GTexel/s | 17.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.462 TFLOPS | 547.2 GFLOPS |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2014-10-06 | 2015-05-04 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | Polaris Mobile |