AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 28 nm era, yet the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M holds a decisive advantage in the only directly comparable compute test, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 counters with a superior feature set in certain API standards. The data shows the GT 755M outscores the R5 M330 by 12.8% in Geekbench OpenCL, translating to 4934 points versus 4302 points. This delta is substantial enough to place the two GPUs in different performance tiers, despite their similar overall percentile rankings of 24 and 25, respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 trails at 4302, a 12.8% deficit for the AMD part. This is a meaningful gap in raw compute throughput, which typically translates to faster physics calculations, video encoding, and general-purpose GPU workloads. The GT 755M’s advantage here is consistent with its hardware specifications, which include 384 shading units versus 320 for the R5 M330, and a 128-bit memory bus versus a 64-bit bus.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the average benchmark score for the GT 755M is 4033, which is actually lower than its OpenCL result because it also includes a Geekbench Metal score of 3132. The R5 M330 has no Metal score, but its average benchmark score of 4170 is pulled up by its OpenCL score of 4302 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4037. This means the R5 M330’s average is higher than the GT 755M’s average, yet the direct comparison in OpenCL shows the NVIDIA part winning decisively. The discrepancy illustrates why single-test comparisons matter more than composite averages when evaluating specific workloads.

The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals data reinforce the performance positioning. The GT 755M’s nearest rival, the AMD FirePro M4150, has an average score of 4013, which is 0.5% lower. The R5 M330’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, scores 4151, a mere 0.4% higher. Both GPUs sit in a dense cluster of similar-performing mobile parts, but the OpenCL head-to-head breaks the tie in favor of NVIDIA. The data shows that the GT 755M is 12.8% faster than the R5 M330 in the one test where they directly compete, making it the stronger compute performer.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, making it the superior choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications. Its 12.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL suggests it handles compute-heavy tasks such as video rendering, scientific simulations, and image processing with noticeably more efficiency. The GT 755M also benefits from a higher base clock of 980 MHz compared to 955 MHz for the R5 M330, though boost clocks are nearly identical at 1020 MHz versus 1030 MHz. More importantly, the GT 755M’s GDDR5 memory with 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth dwarfs the R5 M330’s DDR3 at 14.40 GB/s, which explains why memory-intensive workloads favor the NVIDIA part.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in API compatibility, which is a qualitative advantage not captured by the head-to-head numbers. The R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GT 755M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part’s higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0) means it can handle certain advanced rendering features that the NVIDIA part cannot. However, both support OpenGL 4.6 equally, so OpenGL-based applications will see no API-level difference. For users who prioritize Vulkan compatibility, the R5 M330 has a slightly older but still functional Vulkan version, while the GT 755M has a marginally newer version.

In terms of thermal efficiency, the R5 M330 has a clear win, with a TDP of 18 W versus 50 W for the GT 755M. This makes the AMD part suitable for thinner, lighter laptops with less robust cooling, while the NVIDIA part requires a bulkier chassis with better thermal management. The R5 M330 is also an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, whereas the GT 755M is an MXM module, indicating it is a discrete, replaceable component. For ultraportable systems, the R5 M330’s lower power draw is a significant advantage, even if it sacrifices raw performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed "Exo," while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses the Kepler architecture on the GK107 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. AMD’s Exo chip packs 690 million transistors onto a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². NVIDIA’s GK107 is substantially larger, with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, giving a lower density of 10.8 million per mm². This means the GT 755M has nearly double the transistor count, which explains its higher compute performance.

The memory subsystems are starkly different. The R5 M330 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 755M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 86.40 GB/s — exactly six times the bandwidth. This is the single largest architectural gap between the two parts, and it directly impacts memory-bound workloads like texture-heavy gaming and high-resolution compute tasks. The GT 755M also has more execution resources: 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, versus 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the R5 M330.

Clock speeds are broadly similar, with the R5 M330 running at 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, while the GT 755M runs at 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost. The R5 M330’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the GT 755M’s memory clock is 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). The pixel rates are nearly identical at 8.240 GPixel/s for AMD and 8.160 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, but the texture rates diverge significantly: 20.60 GTexel/s for the R5 M330 versus 32.64 GTexel/s for the GT 755M. The FP32 throughput also favors NVIDIA at 783.4 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS for AMD. Both GPUs lack dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, and neither supports FP16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has an average benchmark score of 4170, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M averages 4033. However, this composite figure is skewed by the R5 M330’s Vulkan score of 4037 and the GT 755M’s lower Metal score of 3132.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the direct OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins with a score of 4934 versus 4302 for the AMD Radeon R5 M330, representing a 12.8% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The GT 755M has 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the R5 M330 has 14.40 GB/s using DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The NVIDIA part has exactly six times the bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The AMD part has a higher feature level.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, compared to 50 W for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M. The AMD part is an IGP with no power connectors, while the NVIDIA part is an MXM module.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The GT 755M has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the R5 M330 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip has nearly double the transistor count.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M as the superior performer for compute-intensive workloads. Its 12.8% lead in OpenCL, combined with six times the memory bandwidth and higher FP32 throughput (783.4 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS), makes it the clear choice for users who need GPU acceleration for tasks like video editing, 3D rendering, or scientific computing. The GT 755M also has more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, which contributes to higher texture fill rates and better overall rasterization performance. For gaming, the GT 755M’s GDDR5 memory and wider bus are likely to provide a smoother experience, even though neither GPU is capable of high-end gaming by modern standards.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the better option for constrained mobile environments. Its 18 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the 50 W GT 755M would require excessive cooling. The R5 M330’s higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0) also gives it a slight edge in API compatibility for certain Windows applications. Additionally, the R5 M330’s average benchmark score of 4170 is higher than the GT 755M’s 4033, indicating that in some mixed workloads, the AMD part can hold its own, particularly when Vulkan is involved. Users who prioritize battery life, portability, and lower heat output will find the R5 M330 more suitable, provided they can accept the performance trade-off.

For most users, the GT 755M is the more capable GPU. The performance gap in the head-to-head test is too large to ignore, and the memory bandwidth advantage is decisive for any memory-intensive task. However, the R5 M330 is not without merit — its lower power draw and higher DirectX feature level make it a viable option for specific use cases. The choice ultimately depends on whether raw compute performance or system-level efficiency matters more. If the laptop chassis can handle the GT 755M’s 50 W TDP, it is the better buy; if not, the R5 M330 offers a functional, if slower, alternative.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M330 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Base Clock | 955 MHz | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 1020 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 86.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 8.160 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 32.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 783.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 18 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2013-06-24 |