AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs AMD Radeon R6 M255DX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head comparison contains a single benchmark result, and it decisively favors the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the R6 M255DX scores 4867 points against 4037 points for the AMD Radeon R5 M330. That is a 20.6% advantage for the R6 M255DX, which is a substantial margin in a graphics workload. The data shows a clear winner in this direct comparison, with the R6 M255DX taking the only recorded head-to-head win.

Looking at the broader benchmark database, the R6 M255DX holds an average benchmark score of 4867, while the R5 M330 averages 4170 across its two recorded tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan). This places the R6 M255DX at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 25th percentile for the R5 M330. The percentile gap is modest, but the raw score difference is meaningful. The R6 M255DX's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (average 4855, a 0.2% deficit), the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (average 4844, a 0.5% deficit), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (average 4893, a 0.5% surplus). The R5 M330 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (average 4151, a 0.4% surplus) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (average 4193, a 0.5% deficit). These rival positions underscore that the R6 M255DX operates in a slightly higher performance tier than the R5 M330, despite both being entry-level mobile parts.

The Vulkan test is the only direct head-to-head measurement available, but its 20.6% delta is consistent with the architectural and clock differences detailed below. The R5 M330 does have a second benchmark entry, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4302, which is higher than its Vulkan score but still below the R6 M255DX's single Vulkan result. No OpenCL result is recorded for the R6 M255DX, so cross-API comparisons are limited to what the database provides.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same foundational design: AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both use a chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The R6 M255DX uses the "Jet" chip, while the R5 M330 uses the "Exo" chip, but they share identical core counts: 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. Neither has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

The key architectural divergence lies in the clock speeds and memory subsystem. The R6 M255DX runs at a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. Its memory is entirely system-shared, meaning it draws from the host system's RAM with no dedicated video memory, a bus width described only as system shared, and bandwidth that is system dependent. The R5 M330, by contrast, runs at a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, and it carries 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This dedicated memory gives the R5 M330 a structural advantage in memory-bound scenarios, though its lower core-for-core performance in the Vulkan test suggests the advantage does not translate into a win.

The R6 M255DX belongs to the "Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200)" generation, while the R5 M330 is from the "Gem System (R5 M300)" lineup. The R5 M330 lists a predecessor ("Solar System") and successor ("Polaris Mobile"), while the R6 M255DX lists neither. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W and uses no power connectors, whereas the R6 M255DX has no recorded TDP or power connector data. Both are integrated-class parts (IGP slot width) with display outputs dependent on the portable device. The R6 M255DX uses an IGP bus interface; the R5 M330 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is the faster GPU in the only direct comparison available. Its 20.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is decisive, and its higher average benchmark score (4867 versus 4170) and higher percentile ranking (28th versus 25th) reinforce that conclusion. Users who prioritize raw graphics performance in Vulkan-based workloads should choose the R6 M255DX.

However, the R5 M330 is not without merit. Its dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth is a structural advantage that the system-shared memory of the R6 M255DX cannot match. In scenarios where dedicated memory matters, such as texture-heavy applications or older games that rely on local video memory, the R5 M330 may behave more consistently. The R5 M330 also has a higher base clock (955 MHz versus 780 MHz) and boost clock (1030 MHz versus 855 MHz), which theoretically benefits compute tasks that scale with clock speed. But the benchmark data shows that these clock advantages do not overcome the R6 M255DX's overall performance in the recorded test.

The R5 M330 has a lower power envelope at 18 W, which is a meaningful consideration for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is limited. The R6 M255DX has no recorded TDP, but as an IGP with system-shared memory, it likely draws less power overall. For users who need a dedicated memory pool or are constrained by a strict power budget, the R5 M330 is the safer choice. For everyone else, the R6 M255DX delivers more performance per benchmark point.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields. The R6 M255DX uses the "Jet" chip, while the R5 M330 uses "Exo." Both are 28 nm TSMC parts with 690 million transistors and a 56 mm² die. Core counts are identical: 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Clock speeds differ: the R6 M255DX has a 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost, while the R5 M330 has a 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. Memory differs fundamentally: the R6 M255DX uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the R5 M330 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. Pixel rate favors the R5 M330 at 8.240 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s for the R6 M255DX. Texture rate also favors the R5 M330 at 20.60 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is higher on the R5 M330 at 659.2 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS. The R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W and no power connectors; the R6 M255DX has neither field recorded. Bus interface differs: IGP for the R6 M255DX, PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R5 M330. The R5 M330 lists a predecessor and successor; the R6 M255DX does not. Release dates differ: January 2014 for the R6 M255DX, May 2015 for the R5 M330.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 4867 against 4037 for the R5 M330, a 20.6% lead.

Q: Does the R5 M330 have any clock speed advantage?

A: Yes, the R5 M330 runs at a 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, compared to 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost for the R6 M255DX.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The R5 M330 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The R6 M255DX has no dedicated memory; it uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Are the core configurations identical?

A: Yes, both GPUs have 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units, all based on GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The R6 M255DX averages 4867 across its recorded benchmark, while the R5 M330 averages 4170 across two tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan).

Q: Which GPU has a lower power draw?

A: The R5 M330 has a recorded TDP of 18 W. The R6 M255DX has no TDP recorded in the database, so a direct power comparison is not possible.

Where Each One Wins

The R6 M255DX wins in raw graphics performance. Its 20.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan and higher average benchmark score (4867 versus 4170) make it the better choice for Vulkan-based gaming or compute workloads. It also holds a higher percentile ranking (28th versus 25th), meaning it outperforms a larger share of the GPU field. In head-to-head terms, the R6 M255DX is the only GPU with a recorded win.

The R5 M330 wins in memory configuration and power efficiency. Its dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth provides a fixed memory pool that does not compete with the host system, which can be an advantage in applications that require consistent memory latency or capacity. Its 18 W TDP is explicitly recorded, making it a predictable choice for thermally constrained designs. The R5 M330 also has higher clock speeds (955 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost) and higher theoretical compute rates (659.2 GFLOPS FP32, 20.60 GTexel/s texture rate, 8.240 GPixel/s pixel rate), which could benefit workloads that scale with clock frequency rather than memory bandwidth.

For users choosing between these two, the decision comes down to what matters more. If the priority is benchmark-verified performance in Vulkan, the R6 M255DX is the clear winner. If the priority is dedicated memory, lower recorded power draw, or higher clock speeds, the R5 M330 offers those specific advantages, though they do not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data. The database shows one decisive result, and it belongs to the R6 M255DX.