AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs AMD Radeon R5 M335 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two mobile GPUs shows a clear, consistent advantage for the AMD Radeon R5 M335 across both benchmark tests. The M335 does not merely edge out the M330; it establishes a decisive lead in raw compute workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M335 scores 4745 against the M330's 4302, a 10.3% advantage. The gap widens further in the Vulkan API test, where the M335 records 4758 and the M330 trails at 4037, a 17.9% difference. This pattern suggests the M335's advantage is not isolated to a single workload type but reflects a broader performance headroom.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The M335 holds an average score of 4752 across its benchmark suite, while the M330 averages 4170. This difference of over 580 points places the two GPUs in distinct performance tiers within the database. The M335's score places it in the 28th percentile of all GPUs tracked, whereas the M330 sits at the 25th percentile. While both are positioned in the lower half of the performance spectrum, the M335's percentile ranking reflects its relatively stronger standing among the broader GPU population.

When examining the nearest rivals for each GPU, the data provides additional context for interpreting these scores. The M335's average of 4752 is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, which averages 4727. It also surpasses the NVIDIA Quadro P400, which averages 4684, by 1.5%. However, the M335 is 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M255 and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB. This clustering around the 4700 to 4800 score range indicates that the M335 is competitive with a specific set of entry-level and older midrange parts, though it does not break into the next performance tier.

The M330, by contrast, anchors its average of 4170 near a different cluster of rivals. It is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, which averages 4151. It is also 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, which averages 4093. On the other side, the M330 trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 0.5% and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M by 1.7%. The M330's rival cluster sits roughly 500 points below the M335's cluster, which quantifies the performance separation between these two AMD parts.

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. The M335 wins both recorded tests, giving it 2 wins against 0 for the M330. The largest single-test margin, the 17.9% advantage in Vulkan, is particularly notable because it suggests the M335 is more capable in API environments that place heavier demands on driver efficiency and hardware scheduling. The OpenCL result, while narrower, still shows a double-digit percentage lead. For any workload that relies on general-purpose GPU compute, the data points squarely toward the M335.

The Verdict

The benchmark data provides a straightforward answer for anyone choosing between these two AMD mobile GPUs. The Radeon R5 M335 is the stronger performer in every recorded test. It posts a 10.3% higher OpenCL score and a 17.9% higher Vulkan score than the R5 M330. Its average benchmark score of 4752 exceeds the M330's 4170 by roughly 14%. The M335 also carries a higher percentile ranking, 28th versus 25th, indicating better standing among all GPUs in the database.

The M330 does have one advantage in the specification sheet: it lists a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, while the M335 does not record base or boost clock figures. The M330 is also explicitly rated at 18 W with an IGP slot width, whereas the M335 does not list a TDP or slot width. For power-constrained designs, the M330's documented 18 W rating and integrated form factor could make it the more predictable choice for system integration. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the M335 is the clear winner.

Buyers who prioritize compute performance should select the Radeon R5 M335. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average score, and outperforms its rival cluster of GPUs. The M335's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX and NVIDIA Quadro P400, both of which it beats by small margins. The M330, meanwhile, competes in a lower tier alongside the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB. The data does not support choosing the M330 for raw performance.

The M330 remains a viable option only if the 18 W TDP and IGP form factor are decisive system requirements. For a laptop or compact device where thermal and power envelopes are tightly constrained, the M330's documented specifications offer a known quantity. The M335, lacking recorded TDP and slot width data, presents more uncertainty in those areas. But for any workload where GPU compute matters, the M335's double-digit leads in both OpenCL and Vulkan make it the only logical pick from the data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins with a score of 4745 against the M330's 4302, a 10.3% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the M335 in Vulkan?

A: The M335 scores 4758 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the M330 scores 4037. That is a 17.9% lead for the M335.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The M335 averages 4752, while the M330 averages 4170. The M335 is about 14% higher on average.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture and process node?

A: Yes. Both use the GCN 1.0 architecture, the Exo chip, and are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. They also share the same transistor count of 690 million and a die size of 56 mm².

Q: Which GPU has a recorded TDP?

A: Only the AMD Radeon R5 M330 lists a TDP, rated at 18 W. The M335 does not have a TDP recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share a substantial portion of their hardware foundation, but the recorded specifications reveal a few key differences. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 does not list base or boost clock speeds. The AMD Radeon R5 M330, by contrast, records a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz. This is the most significant difference in the clock department, though the M335's lack of recorded clocks does not necessarily mean it lacks them; the data is simply absent.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The M330 lists a TDP of 18 W and a slot width of IGP. The M335 has no TDP recorded and no slot width listed. Both GPUs have no power connectors, meaning they draw power exclusively from the motherboard or socket, which is typical for mobile integrated parts.

Release dates differ as well. The M335 was released on October 20, 2015, while the M330 was released earlier on May 4, 2015. Both are now marked as end-of-life in the database.

Everything else in the specification sheet is identical. Both use the Exo chip, GCN 1.0 architecture, the Gem System (R5 M300) generation, a 28 nm process at TSMC, 690 million transistors, and a 56 mm² die size. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth and 900 MHz memory clock. Both feature 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. Pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s for both, texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 659.2 GFLOPS. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for both, and display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The architecture sections of the database show that the AMD Radeon R5 M335 and AMD Radeon R5 M330 are built on the same fundamental design. Both use the GCN 1.0 architecture, which represents AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next design. Both use the same chip, codenamed Exo, and both belong to the Gem System generation within the R5 M300 family. There is no architectural divergence in the core design itself.

The process node is identical for both GPUs: 28 nm at TSMC. Transistor count is also the same at 690 million, and the die size is 56 mm² for both. This results in an identical transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The shared die and transistor budget mean the fundamental silicon is the same, with any performance differences stemming from clock behavior, firmware, or power delivery rather than a different physical design.

Both GPUs feature 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is consistent with their GCN 1.0 architecture and the era in which they were released. The memory subsystem is also identical: 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. There is no difference in memory type, capacity, or bus width.

The API support is identical across both parts. DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 are all listed for both. This means software compatibility and feature-level support are the same, and the performance differences observed in benchmarks reflect execution efficiency rather than API capability gaps.

The only meaningful architectural or specification differences recorded are the M330's explicit base and boost clocks of 955 MHz and 1030 MHz, its 18 W TDP, and its IGP slot width. The M335 does not have these fields populated in the database. Since both GPUs share the same chip, process, transistor count, die size, and core configuration, the M335's benchmark advantage likely stems from higher effective clock behavior or more favorable power delivery in the systems where it was measured, though the database does not provide direct clock data for the M335 to confirm this.