AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R5 M330 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 in the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302, while the GeForce GT 545 scores 3594. That puts the AMD part 19.7% ahead in this single head-to-head test.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score across the database?

A: The Radeon R5 M330 averages 4170, versus 3594 for the GeForce GT 545. The R5 M330 also sits in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 21st percentile for the GT 545.

Q: What kind of memory configuration does each card use, and how does bandwidth differ?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s. The GeForce GT 545 uses 1536 MB of DDR3 on a 192-bit bus, reaching 38.40 GB/s. The NVIDIA part has roughly 2.7 times the raw bandwidth.

Q: Are there differences in shading unit count and compute throughput between the two chips?

A: Yes, the R5 M330 has 320 shading units and reaches 659.2 GFLOPS FP32, while the GT 545 has 144 shading units and 414.7 GFLOPS FP32. The AMD card also has the higher texture rate at 20.4 GTexel/s, and the higher pixel rate at 8.2 GPixel/s, 90% above the GT 545's 4.3 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the difference in process node technology between the pair?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is built on TSMC's 28 nm process with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The GT 545's GF116 chip uses TSMC's 40 nm node with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die.

Q: Which card is the newer release and what launch MSRP is recorded for the NVIDIA part?

A: The Radeon R5 M330 was released on May 4, 2015, while the GeForce GT 545 came on May 13, 2011. The database records a launch MSRP of 149 USD for the GT 545.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head test between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Radeon R5 M330 posts 4302 against 3594, a 19.7% margin in favor of AMD. That is not a narrow gap; it represents a substantial lead in the computational workload measured by that test. For context, the R5 M330's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M at 4241 (1.7% behind the R5 M330) and the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4193 (0.5% behind), while the GT 545 sits near the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation at 3596 (0.1% above the GT 545) and the GeForce GTX 1050 at 3629 (1.0% above the GT 545). What stands out is the positioning: the R5 M330 lands within a tight cluster of stronger, larger GPUs, over a 400 point range around it, while the GT 545 groups with more modest hardware from its own era.

The delta between the two cards is 708 points in OpenCL. Since the R5 M330 wins this test and holds one recorded win overall, the data consistently points to AMD's part handling this specific compute workload better. Yet the GT 545 is not without its own claims: its memory bus is three times wider, and its bandwidth advantage is large. That makes the outcome of any memory-sensitive workload less certain, even if the single available benchmark favors the Radeon.

Architecture Differences

The AMD side uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on the "Exo" chip, belonging to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. The NVIDIA side uses Fermi 2.0 on the GF116 chip, part of the GeForce 500 generation. The process nodes diverge: AMD uses TSMC's 28 nm process, while NVIDIA still used TSMC's 40 nm process for this card. AMD packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm², whereas NVIDIA fits 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, at a lower density of 4.9 million per mm². That means the R5 M330 is a smaller, denser chip, while the GT 545 is a physically larger design with more transistors spread out over a much bigger area.

The compute resources differ significantly. The R5 M330 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The GT 545 has 144 shading units, 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Even with fewer shading units, the NVIDIA chip has more texture units and double the ROP count. The R5 M330 compensates with clock speed: 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, while the GT 545's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The memory clocks also differ: the R5 M330 runs its DDR3 memory at 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective, while the GT 545 runs 800 MHz, 1600 Mbps effective, a modest gap in absolute terms.

The R5 M330 supports PCIe 3.0 x8, DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2. The GT 545 supports PCIe 2.0 x16, DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan entry recorded. The R5 M330 is an IGP in slot width, with portable device dependent display outputs and no power connectors. The GT 545 is a single-slot card, 145 mm long, with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a and 1x VGA outputs, no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The power draw difference is notable: 18 W for the AMD part versus 70 W for the NVIDIA part, a nearly four-fold gap that reflects the efficiency gains from the newer process node.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores, as both predate that technology, and neither has tensor cores. The R5 M330 is in the end-of-life stage, preceded by the Solar System generation and succeeded by Polaris Mobile. The GT 545 is also end-of-life, preceded by GeForce 400 and succeeded by GeForce 600.

Specification Differences

Memory capacity differs: the R5 M330 carries 2 GB, the GT 545 carries 1536 MB. Memory type is the same, DDR3, but the bus width splits: 64 bit for AMD versus 192 bit for NVIDIA. That bus width difference, combined with the memory clock difference, yields 14.40 GB/s for the R5 M330 versus 38.40 GB/s for the GT 545. The NVIDIA card's bandwidth is more than double, and its memory subsystem is clearly the stronger of the two.

The compute specs favor the AMD card. Shading units stand at 320 versus 144, TMUs at 20 versus 24, and ROPs at 8 versus 16. Pixel rate: 8.240 GPixel/s versus 4.320 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 20.60 GTexel/s versus 17.28 GTexel/s. FP32: 659.2 GFLOPS versus 414.7 GFLOPS. So in every throughput metric except the count of TMUs and ROPs, the R5 M330 leads, and the pixel and texture rates confirm the AMD part can fill geometry faster despite fewer texture units.

Power and physical design also differ. TDP is 18 W for the AMD part and 70 W for the NVIDIA part. Slot width: IGP versus single-slot. The GT 545 has a 145 mm length recorded, while the R5 M330 has no length on record. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. The API support shows the R5 M330 with DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GT 545 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6 and no Vulkan. Both are end-of-life, but the release dates sit four years apart: May 4, 2015 versus May 13, 2011.

The GT 545 has a recorded launch MSRP of 149 USD. The R5 M330 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data favors the AMD Radeon R5 M330 in compute performance. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 19.7%, has a higher average benchmark score (4170 versus 3594), and reaches a higher percentile rank (25th versus 21st). The GT 545, by contrast, offers a much wider memory bus and more bandwidth, which is an advantage in certain workloads but not one captured by the available OpenCL test. The R5 M330 also operates at a far lower TDP of 18 W versus 70 W, and it is built on a more advanced 28 nm process, making it the more efficient part in this pairing.

For a user prioritizing raw compute throughput, the Radeon R5 M330 is the better choice. For a user prioritizing memory bandwidth, the GeForce GT 545 is the better choice, though its higher power draw and older architecture reduce its appeal. The GT 545 also has a wider set of display outputs and a physical single-slot design, which may matter in specific desktop configurations. The R5 M330 is an IGP, meaning it is typically integrated into a system board, while the GT 545 is a discrete card with its own outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R5 M330 wins in compute-heavy tasks. Its OpenCL score is 19.7% higher, its FP32 output is 659.2 GFLOPS versus 414.7 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 8.2 GPixel/s versus 4.3 GPixel/s, so it can process shader and pixel work faster. It also wins on power efficiency, drawing 18 W versus 70 W, and on transistor density, 12.3M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm², which reflects the newer manufacturing process. Its Vulkan support, at version 1.2.170, adds a capability the GT 545 lacks.

The GeForce GT 545 wins in memory-bound scenarios. Its 192-bit bus and 38.40 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the R5 M330's 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s, so workloads that stream large amounts of texture or vertex data could run relatively better on the NVIDIA part. It also has more TMUs (24 versus 20) and more ROPs (16 versus 8), which can help in fill-rate-limited situations. The GT 545's display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.3a, VGA) and its single-slot form factor give it a clear edge in desktop connectivity, while the R5 M330's display support is portable device dependent.

The data does not show any test where the GT 545 wins outright; the only recorded head-to-head result goes to the R5 M330. But the specification breakdown suggests the NVIDIA part would be competitive in memory-heavy applications, and its larger ROP count could matter for certain rendering paths. The R5 M330 is the faster overall part in the database's measurements, with a benchmark average 576 points higher, and it does so at a fraction of the power draw. For anyone choosing between these two based solely on the recorded numbers, the Radeon R5 M330 is the stronger performer.