AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two mobile GPUs into very different roles. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins both benchmark comparisons in the database, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4,939 against 4,302 for the AMD Radeon R5 M330, a 14.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA part extends its lead further, scoring 4,749 versus 4,037, a 17.6% gap. That means the 940MX is the stronger compute performer in every measured category, with no test in the database where the AMD Radeon R5 M330 comes out ahead.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 does hold a few structural advantages that could matter in specific workloads, even if the benchmark scores do not reflect them. Its pixel rate is higher at 8.240 GPixel/s compared to 6.888 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA chip, which suggests it can fill framebuffers faster in pure rasterization scenarios. Its base clock is also higher at 955 MHz versus 795 MHz, and its boost clock reaches 1,030 MHz compared to 861 MHz. These raw clock advantages do not translate into compute wins, but they hint that the AMD part may be tuned for lighter, more latency-sensitive tasks rather than sustained throughput.

The 940MX, by contrast, wins on shading throughput, texture work, memory bandwidth, and raw compute. It has 512 shading units against 320, 32 texture mapping units against 20, and memory bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. Its FP32 output is 881.7 GFLOPS, which is 33.7% higher than the AMD part's 659.2 GFLOPS. These are the numbers that drive its benchmark victories. In short, the NVIDIA part wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, while the AMD part only shows theoretical advantages in pixel fill and clock speed.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural generations and different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip built on the Maxwell architecture, belonging to the GeForce 900M generation. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process and packs 1,870 million transistors into a die size of 148 mm². That yields a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the Exo chip based on GCN 1.0, from the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. It is also built by TSMC on 28 nm, but the die is much smaller at 56 mm² with 690 million transistors, giving a density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The transistor density is nearly identical, but the NVIDIA die is 2.6 times larger in area and carries 2.7 times more transistors.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The 940MX pairs its 2 GB frame buffer with GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, achieving 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M330 also has 2 GB on a 64-bit bus, but it uses DDR3 memory and tops out at 14.40 GB/s. That is a 2.8 times bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA chip, and it directly explains why the 940MX pulls ahead in compute-heavy benchmarks.

Shading resources also diverge sharply. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The R5 M330 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 60% more shaders and 60% more texture units. The ROP count is equal at 8, which is why the AMD part's pixel rate advantage comes purely from its higher clock speed rather than from more ROP hardware.

Feature support is another dividing line. The NVIDIA chip supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD chip supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12, but the NVIDIA implementation is 12 (11_0) while the AMD implementation is 12 (11_1). OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. The 940MX is also a newer design, released on 2016-06-27, while the R5 M330 arrived earlier on 2015-05-04. The 940MX succeeds the GeForce 800M and is succeeded by GeForce 10 Mobile, while the R5 M330 succeeds the Solar System family and passes the torch to Polaris Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons, and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 940MX scores 4,939 against 4,302 for the Radeon R5 M330, a 14.8% delta. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin grows to 17.6%, with scores of 4,749 and 4,037 respectively. The larger Vulkan gap is notable because the NVIDIA driver stack and architecture appear to scale better with the lower-level API workload.

Looking at the broader positioning, the 940MX sits at the 28th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 4,844. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M at 4,855 (0.2% behind the 940MX), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX at 4,867 (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 at 4,893 (1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4,791 (1.1% ahead of the 940MX). The presence of an RTX 3080 12 GB in this neighborhood is a reminder that these scores are compute-oriented synthetic results, not gaming frame rates.

The Radeon R5 M330 sits at the 25th percentile with an average benchmark score of 4,170. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4,151 (0.4% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4,193 (0.5% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M at 4,241 (1.7% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4,093 (1.9% behind). The 940MX outperforms the R5 M330 by 674 points on average, a 16.2% gap. That is a substantial margin for two mobile parts that both target thin-and-light laptops.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4,939 versus 4,302 for the AMD Radeon R5 M330, a 14.8% advantage.

Q: How much larger is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the 940MX scores 4,749 and the R5 M330 scores 4,037, giving the NVIDIA part a 17.6% lead.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M330 have any advantages?

A: Yes, it has a higher pixel rate at 8.240 GPixel/s versus 6.888 GPixel/s, and higher base and boost clocks at 955 MHz and 1,030 MHz versus 795 MHz and 861 MHz for the 940MX.

Q: Why does the NVIDIA chip win despite lower clocks?

A: The 940MX has 512 shading units versus 320, 32 TMUs versus 20, and 40.10 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s. Its FP32 output is 881.7 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M330 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, though the DirectX 12 versions differ slightly.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 940MX sits close to the GeForce GTX 560M, which is 0.2% behind, and the Radeon R6 M255DX, which is 0.5% behind. The R5 M330 sits near the Quadro K2100M, which is 0.4% behind it.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The 940MX uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture, while the R5 M330 uses the Exo chip on GCN 1.0. The 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the R5 M330 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Transistor density is close at 12.6M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm².

Clocks favor the AMD part. The R5 M330 runs at 955 MHz base and 1,030 MHz boost, while the 940MX runs at 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost. Memory clocks favor the NVIDIA part, with 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on GDDR5 versus 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) on DDR3.

Memory bandwidth is a decisive difference: 40.10 GB/s for the 940MX versus 14.40 GB/s for the R5 M330. Both have 2 GB of memory on a 64-bit bus. Shading units are 512 versus 320, TMUs are 32 versus 20, and ROPs are 8 for both.

Pixel rate favors AMD at 8.240 GPixel/s versus 6.888 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors NVIDIA at 27.55 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors NVIDIA at 881.7 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

TDP differs, with the 940MX rated at 23 W and the R5 M330 at 18 W. The form factors also differ: the 940MX is an MXM Module while the R5 M330 is an IGP. Both have no power connectors and both use PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for both.

Release dates differ by about a year. The R5 M330 shipped on 2015-05-04, and the 940MX followed on 2016-06-27. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute workloads. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX beats the AMD Radeon R5 M330 in both recorded benchmarks, with leads of 14.8% in OpenCL and 17.6% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 4,844 sits 16.2% above the R5 M330's 4,170. The 940MX also lands in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, three points higher than the R5 M330's 25th percentile.

Buyers who care about GPU compute in a thin laptop should favor the 940MX. It offers more shading units, more texture units, 2.8 times the memory bandwidth, and significantly higher FP32 throughput. Those resources translate directly into the benchmark results, and the NVIDIA part also carries a newer Vulkan implementation at 1.4 versus 1.2.170.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is not without a rationale. Its lower TDP of 18 W versus 23 W means it draws less power, and its higher pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s gives it an edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its higher base and boost clocks also suggest it can respond quickly to bursty workloads. For users whose primary concern is power efficiency rather than raw compute, the R5 M330 is the more conservative choice.

That said, no benchmark in the database favors the AMD part. The 940MX wins every recorded test, and its average score places it in a higher performance tier. The R5 M330 is positioned closer to the Quadro K2100M, while the 940MX trades blows with the GeForce GTX 560M and Radeon R6 M255DX. The 940MX is the stronger all-around mobile GPU in this comparison, and the R5 M330 should only be selected when its lower power draw is the deciding factor.