AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce 825M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark result between these two mobile graphics processors: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 records a score of 4302 against the NVIDIA GeForce 825M's 3694. This translates to a 16.5% advantage for the AMD part, a substantial margin in the entry-level mobile segment. The R5 M330 therefore takes the sole win in the head-to-head comparison, with a 1-0 record.

Placing these scores into context strengthens the interpretation. The AMD Radeon R5 M330's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4170, which places it at the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, as measured by average score, include the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4151 (0.4% behind the AMD part), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4193 (0.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M at 4241 (1.7% ahead). The AMD chip sits in a tightly contested cluster where a few points separate these mobile and older desktop parts.

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3694, which places it at the 22nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals cluster closely as well: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M at 3717 (0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M at 3718 (0.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 at 3649 (1.2% behind). The 825M is thus positioned in a slightly lower performance band than the R5 M330, and the 16.5% gap between the two in OpenCL confirms this tier separation.

The magnitude of the lead matters. A 16.5% delta is not a marginal difference; it represents a clearly measurable performance advantage for the AMD Radeon R5 M330 in compute workloads as captured by Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA part does not have a single recorded benchmark where it outperforms the AMD chip in the head-to-head data.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in the only directly comparable test, Geekbench OpenCL. This indicates a stronger showing in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL acceleration. The AMD part also has a second recorded benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 4037, a result that has no corresponding entry for the NVIDIA GeForce 825M in the database. This absence of a Vulkan score for the 825M means the AMD part demonstrates capability in both OpenCL and Vulkan APIs, while the NVIDIA part's recorded performance is limited to OpenCL only.

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Its recorded score of 3694 in OpenCL is lower than the AMD part's score in the same test. However, the data does show the 825M has a higher theoretical texture rate, 30.11 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s for the R5 M330, and a higher FP32 throughput, 722.7 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS. These raw specifications suggest the NVIDIA chip could have an edge in certain fill-rate-bound or shader-heavy scenarios, but the actual benchmark results do not confirm this advantage in practice for the tested workload.

For use-case segmentation, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 appears better suited for compute-oriented tasks that stress OpenCL and Vulkan performance. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M, despite its higher theoretical throughput numbers, does not translate those specifications into a benchmark win in the recorded data. Users relying on OpenCL acceleration would see a measurable benefit from the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families and different manufacturers. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, built around a chip codenamed Exo, and belongs to the Gem System generation (R5 M300 series). The NVIDIA GeForce 825M uses the Kepler 2.0 architecture, built around the GK208 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 800M generation.

Both chips are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but their physical designs diverge significantly. The AMD chip contains 690 million transistors on a die size of 56 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip contains 1,020 million transistors on a larger die of 87 mm², yielding a lower transistor density of 11.7 million per mm². The NVIDIA part packs more transistors overall, but the AMD part achieves higher density per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems are identical in several key aspects: both use DDR3 memory, both have a 64-bit bus width, and both achieve a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The memory clock is also the same at 900 MHz, with 1800 Mbps effective data rate. The difference lies in capacity: the AMD Radeon R5 M330 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M comes with 1024 MB (1 GB). This doubling of memory capacity on the AMD side is a notable advantage for workloads that require larger frame buffers or data sets.

The compute configurations differ in ways that are not purely additive. The AMD chip has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA chip has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has more shading units and more TMUs, which explains its higher theoretical texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s and FP32 throughput of 722.7 GFLOPS. The AMD part, despite fewer units, achieves a higher pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA chip, a result of its higher base clock of 955 MHz versus 850 MHz and boost clock of 1030 MHz versus 941 MHz.

API support shows a generation split. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support the same OpenGL version, but the AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, while the NVIDIA part has a slightly newer Vulkan version. Neither chip supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as those fields are null.

Power consumption differs markedly. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M has a TDP of 33 W. The AMD part draws nearly half the power envelope, a significant factor for mobile designs where thermal and battery constraints are critical. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The Verdict

The data points toward the AMD Radeon R5 M330 as the stronger performer in the recorded benchmarks. It wins the head-to-head OpenCL test with a 16.5% margin, has a higher average benchmark score (4170 versus 3694), and sits at a higher percentile rank (25th versus 22nd). The AMD part also offers double the memory capacity, 2 GB versus 1 GB, at the same bus width and bandwidth, and does so with a much lower TDP of 18 W versus 33 W.

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M does have higher theoretical compute and texture rates, but these do not materialize into a benchmark victory in the available data. Its higher transistor count, 1,020 million versus 690 million, and larger die, 87 mm² versus 56 mm², do not translate into superior measured performance. The NVIDIA part's only recorded benchmark score is 3694, which falls below the AMD part's scores in both OpenCL and Vulkan.

For a system builder or user choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the clear choice based on performance data. It delivers a decisive lead in the compute benchmark, offers more memory, consumes less power, and supports a higher DirectX feature level. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M would only be preferable in scenarios where its specific architectural traits, such as more shading units and TMUs, could be exploited, but the recorded benchmarks do not demonstrate such an advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302, which is 16.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 825M's score of 3694.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M has 1024 MB (1 GB) of DDR3 memory. Both use a 64-bit bus and achieve the same 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M has a TDP of 33 W, making the AMD part significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 825M have a Vulkan benchmark score?

A: No, the database records only a Geekbench OpenCL score of 3694 for the NVIDIA GeForce 825M. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has both an OpenCL score of 4302 and a Vulkan score of 4037.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M has 384 shading units, compared to 320 shading units on the AMD Radeon R5 M330. The NVIDIA part also has more texture mapping units, 32 versus 20.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M contains 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M330 | NVIDIA GeForce 825M |

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

| Manufacturer | AMD | NVIDIA |

| Chip | Exo | GK208 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler 2.0 |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M300) | GeForce 800M |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 955 MHz | 850 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 941 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 18 W | 33 W |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2014-01-26 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | GeForce 900M |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 4302 | 3694 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 4037 | Not recorded |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 4170 | 3694 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 25th | 22nd |