AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data in this database points to a clear, if modest, overall winner: the AMD Radeon R5 M330. Across the two recorded head-to-head tests, it wins both, with its largest margin coming in the Geekbench Vulkan workload. For users who prioritize compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan applications, the R5 M330 is the stronger pick based on the measurements.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M is not without its own merits. The data shows it has a higher texture rate and a larger transistor count, which can translate to better performance in texture-bound tasks. That said, the recorded benchmark scores do not favor it. The GT 740M's average benchmark score is 3717, which places it in the 22nd percentile of all GPUs. The R5 M330, by comparison, sits at the 25th percentile with an average score of 4170. This percentile gap is small but consistent.

For a user deciding between these two, the choice hinges on the workload. If the primary use case involves general compute, OpenCL acceleration, or Vulkan-based rendering, the R5 M330 is the logical choice. If the workload relies more heavily on texture throughput and the system can accommodate a higher power draw, the GT 740M may still serve adequately. But strictly from the recorded benchmark results, the R5 M330 leads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using a chip codenamed "Exo". It belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M uses the Kepler 2.0 architecture with a GK208 chip and belongs to the GeForce 700M generation.

Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the fabrication node is identical. The transistor counts differ notably. The GT 740M packs 1,020 million transistors on a die size of 87 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 11.7 million per mm². The R5 M330 has 690 million transistors on a smaller 56 mm² die, giving it a slightly higher transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². This means AMD fit more transistors per square millimeter, though NVIDIA had more total transistors.

The shading unit counts also differ. The GT 740M has 384 shading units, while the R5 M330 has 320. The GT 740M also has more texture mapping units (TMUs), with 32 versus the R5 M330's 20. Both GPUs have the same number of render output units (ROPs) at 8.

Clock speeds are close but not identical. The R5 M330 runs at a base clock of 955 MHz with a boost of 1030 MHz. The GT 740M is slightly higher, with a base of 980 MHz and a boost of 1033 MHz. Memory clocks are identical at 900 MHz, translating to 1800 Mbps effective for both.

The API support differs in one key area. The R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GT 740M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). OpenGL support is the same at 4.6. Vulkan support is slightly newer on the NVIDIA side, with version 1.2.175 versus AMD's 1.2.170.

The power envelope is a major architectural differentiator. The R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W and is designed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor). The GT 740M has a TDP of 33 W and comes as an MXM module. This means the NVIDIA part draws nearly twice the power and is not an integrated solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark results between these GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3974. This gives the R5 M330 a win by 8.3%. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the gap widens. The R5 M330 scores 4037, and the GT 740M scores 3459, resulting in a 16.7% advantage for the AMD part.

These results show a consistent pattern. The R5 M330 leads in both compute-oriented workloads, and its advantage grows in the Vulkan test. The GT 740M's higher shader count (384 versus 320) and higher texture rate (33.06 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s) do not translate into benchmark wins in these tests.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this. The R5 M330 has an average score of 4170, while the GT 740M averages 3717. That is a difference of roughly 12% in favor of the AMD part. In terms of percentile ranking against all GPUs, the R5 M330 sits at the 25th percentile, and the GT 740M sits at the 22nd.

It is worth noting the nearest rivals for each GPU to contextualize these scores. The R5 M330's closest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (average 4151, delta 0.4%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (average 4193, delta -0.5%). The GT 740M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (average 3718, delta 0%) and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (average 3694, delta 0.6%). These figures show that both GPUs are clustered with other older mobile parts in the low-to-mid range.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has an average benchmark score of 4170, compared to 3717 for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M.

Q: How much faster is the R5 M330 in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The R5 M330 scores 4037 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GT 740M scores 3459, giving the AMD part a 16.7% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same amount of power?

A: No. The R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, while the GT 740M has a TDP of 33 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M has 384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 320.

Q: What are the memory specifications for both GPUs?

A: Both GPUs have 2 GB of DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus width and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for both.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which is newer than the R5 M330's Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in the recorded compute benchmarks. It takes the Geekbench OpenCL test by 8.3% and the Geekbench Vulkan test by 16.7%. This makes it the stronger choice for OpenCL compute workloads, Vulkan-based applications, and any task that relies on general-purpose GPU compute. Its lower TDP of 18 W also makes it suitable for systems with tighter power budgets, especially since it is designed as an IGP.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M does not win any recorded benchmark. However, the data shows areas where it holds a hardware advantage. Its texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s is significantly higher than the R5 M330's 20.60 GTexel/s. This suggests the GT 740M could perform better in texture-heavy rendering scenarios, even if the recorded compute benchmarks do not reflect that. Its pixel rate of 8.264 GPixel/s is also marginally higher than the R5 M330's 8.240 GPixel/s. The GT 740M also has a higher FP32 performance of 793.3 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part.

For users running older DirectX 11-style workloads, the GT 740M's Kepler 2.0 architecture may be more familiar, though the R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) which is a slightly newer feature level. In practical terms, the GT 740M is the better fit when the application is texture-bound and the system can handle its 33 W TDP.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Radeon R5 M330 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M:

• Manufacturer: AMD versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Exo versus GK208
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus Kepler 2.0
• Generation: Gem System (R5 M300) versus GeForce 700M
• Transistors: 690 million versus 1,020 million
• Die Size: 56 mm² versus 87 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² versus 11.7M / mm²
• Base Clock: 955 MHz versus 980 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1030 MHz versus 1033 MHz
• Shading Units: 320 versus 384
• TMUs: 20 versus 32
• Pixel Rate: 8.240 GPixel/s versus 8.264 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.60 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s
• FP32: 659.2 GFLOPS versus 793.3 GFLOPS
• TDP: 18 W versus 33 W
• Slot Width: IGP versus MXM Module
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 versus 1.2.175
• Release Date: 2015-05-04 versus 2013-06-19
• Predecessor: Solar System versus GeForce 600M
• Successor: Polaris Mobile versus GeForce 800M
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 25 versus 22
• Average Benchmark Score: 4170 versus 3717
• OpenCL Benchmark: 4302 versus 3974
• Vulkan Benchmark: 4037 versus 3459

The two GPUs share identical values for process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory size (2 GB), memory type (DDR3), memory bus width (64 bit), memory bandwidth (14.40 GB/s), memory clock (900 MHz effective 1800 Mbps), ROPs (8), power connectors (None), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), OpenGL support (4.6), and production status (End-of-life).