AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs AMD Radeon R5 M430 Comparison

The data shows a clear generational step between these two entry-level mobile GPUs. Across the two recorded DirectX and Vulkan workloads, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins both head-to-head matchups, with margins that are significant for this class of hardware. The M430 delivers a 19.8% higher OpenCL score and a 21% higher Vulkan score, making it the stronger option for compute and modern API workloads, despite sharing the same core architecture and manufacturing process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon R5 M430 scores 5152 against the R5 M330’s 4302. That is a 19.8% advantage, a substantial gap that places the M430 in a different performance tier for general-purpose GPU compute. The M330’s score of 4302 puts it in a cluster with the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, which averages 4151, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which averages 4193. The M430, by contrast, sits near the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034) and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063), outscoring both of those by slim margins of 0.3% and 0.9% respectively.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story. The M430 records 4884, while the M330 manages only 4037. The 21% delta here is even slightly larger than the OpenCL gap. In Vulkan, the M430’s score of 4884 is more than enough to clear the M330’s nearest rivals, which include the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M at 4241 and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093. The M330’s Vulkan performance is its weaker showing, trailing its own OpenCL result by roughly 6%, whereas the M430’s Vulkan score is only about 5% lower than its OpenCL score.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy. The M430 averages 5018 across both tests, placing it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The M330 averages 4170, landing in the 25th percentile. That five-percentile gap is meaningful for a laptop GPU that has no upgrade path. In practical terms, the M430 is roughly one-fifth faster in both recorded workloads, which is the difference between a playable framerate at low settings and a stuttery experience in modern titles.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. The die is identical in size at 56 mm², and both pack 690 million transistors, yielding the same transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The chip names differ, with the M430 using the “Jet” die and the M330 using the “Exo” die, but the underlying compute resources are the same: 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is expected for this vintage of hardware.

The key architectural difference is clock speed. The M330 runs a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, while the M430 runs a significantly lower base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. This is counterintuitive on paper, but the benchmark results show that the M430’s lower clocks do not hurt its real-world performance. The M330’s higher clocks produce a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s, while the M430 delivers only 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s. The M330 also leads in raw FP32 throughput at 659.2 GFLOPS versus the M430’s 547.2 GFLOPS.

Despite the M330’s theoretical compute advantage, the M430 wins in every recorded benchmark. The explanation lies in the memory subsystem. The M430 ships with 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M330 has only 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 64-bit bus, capping bandwidth at 14.40 GB/s. The M430 also runs its memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), versus the M330’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). For a low-end GPU, memory bandwidth is often the limiting factor, and the M430’s 11% bandwidth advantage appears to outweigh the M330’s clock speed lead in these workloads.

The M330 carries a listed TDP of 18 W, while the M430 has no TDP figure recorded. Both are integrated GPUs with a slot width of “IGP” and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The M330 uses no power connectors, and the M430 lacks any connector listing. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, and both expose the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R5 M430 wins both recorded benchmarks, but the M330 is not without theoretical strengths. The M330’s higher clock speeds give it a clear advantage in raw pixel throughput and texture fill rate. If a workload were heavily dependent on those fixed-function units and did not saturate memory bandwidth, the M330 could edge ahead. The M330’s FP32 rate of 659.2 GFLOPS is also 20% higher than the M430’s 547.2 GFLOPS, which could matter for compute tasks that fit entirely in cache or that do not require frequent memory access.

In practice, the database shows no workload where the M330 wins. The M430’s larger frame buffer (4 GB versus 2 GB) and higher memory bandwidth make it the better choice for modern games that exceed 2 GB of VRAM at 1080p or for compute workloads that stream data. The M430’s 19.8% OpenCL lead and 21% Vulkan lead are consistent across both tests, indicating that the memory advantage is the dominant factor. For users who run older titles at 720p or 1366x768 with low textures, the M330’s higher clocks might close the gap, but the recorded data does not support a use case where the M330 is the faster card.

The M430 also holds a slight edge in API compatibility, at least in terms of measured results. Its Vulkan score of 4884 is close to its OpenCL score of 5152, suggesting that the M430’s driver and memory subsystem handle the lower-level API efficiently. The M330’s Vulkan score of 4037 drops further behind its OpenCL score of 4302, a sign that the M330 is more sensitive to API overhead or memory pressure in Vulkan workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M430 averages 5018 across both recorded tests, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 averages 4170, a difference of roughly 20%.

Q: Does the M330’s higher clock speed make it faster in any test?

A: No. Despite a 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost clock, the M330 loses both the OpenCL test (4302 versus 5152) and the Vulkan test (4037 versus 4884) to the M430, which runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have, and does it matter?

A: The M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the M330 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The M430’s memory bandwidth is 16.00 GB/s versus the M330’s 14.40 GB/s, which contributes to the M430’s consistent lead.

Q: Are these GPUs the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, with identical transistor counts (690 million), die size (56 mm²), and compute resources (320 shading units, 20 TMUs, 8 ROPs).

Q: What is the M330’s power draw?

A: The M330 has a listed TDP of 18 W. The M430 does not have a TDP figure recorded in the database.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance relative to its OpenCL performance?

A: The M430’s Vulkan score of 4884 is 5.2% lower than its OpenCL score of 5152. The M330’s Vulkan score of 4037 is 6.2% lower than its OpenCL score of 4302. The M430 maintains a slightly smaller drop-off.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields, despite sharing the same architecture and core layout. The M430 uses the “Jet” chip, while the M330 uses the “Exo” chip. The M430 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz, versus the M330’s 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. Memory configurations differ significantly: the M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the M330 has 2 GB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

The M430’s pixel rate is 6.840 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s, while the M330 achieves 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance follows the same pattern: the M430 delivers 547.2 GFLOPS, and the M330 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS. The M330 has a listed TDP of 18 W and uses no power connectors, while the M430 has no TDP or power connector data. The M330 has a recorded release date of May 4, 2015, while the M430 has no release date listed. Both are end-of-life products with the same predecessor (“Solar System”) and successor (“Polaris Mobile”).

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R5 M430 is the faster GPU, winning both recorded tests by roughly 20%. Its 4 GB frame buffer and 16.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth give it a decisive edge over the M330’s 2 GB and 14.40 GB/s, even though the M330 has higher clock speeds and higher theoretical fill rates. If you have a choice between two laptops, one with the M430 and one with the M330, the M430 is the correct pick for any workload that touches the GPU, whether gaming, video encoding, or OpenCL/Vulkan compute.

The M330 is not without merit. Its 18 W TDP suggests it may be easier to cool in a thin chassis, and its higher pixel rate and texture rate could help in very old games that are fill-rate limited. But those advantages do not appear in the recorded data. The M330 sits in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the M430 sits in the 30th percentile, and that five-point gap corresponds to a consistent one-fifth performance lead.

For a buyer, the M430 is the safer choice. It offers more VRAM, higher bandwidth, and better benchmark scores across the board. The M330’s only advantage is theoretical compute throughput, which the memory subsystem fails to feed in practice. Neither GPU is a gaming powerhouse, but the M430 is the one that will handle a modern title at low settings, while the M330 will struggle with the same workload. If the database is the guide, the M430 is the definitive winner in this head-to-head.