AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and AMD Radeon R5 M330 are two end-of-life mobile graphics processors from different eras, with the data showing them as near-statistical twins in raw compute despite their architectural and temporal gaps. The benchmark results place both firmly in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, indicating entry-level performance, yet their individual strengths and weaknesses diverge sharply depending on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is remarkably close. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M trails by a mere 0.5% with a score of 4282. This 20-point margin is negligible in real-world terms, placing the two cards within a hair's breadth of each other in compute throughput. The R5 M330 claims the single head-to-head win, but the delta is so small that it effectively represents a tie.

Contextualizing these scores against their nearest rivals reinforces the parity. The GTX 460M sits between the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, +0.3% for NVIDIA) and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, -0.3%), while the R5 M330 lands between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, -0.5%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241, -1.7%). Both cards are bracketed by the same Quadro K3000M, which scores 4241, and the R5 M330's 4302 is just 1.4% above that rival.

The R5 M330 also has a Geekbench Vulkan result of 4037, a test the GTX 460M does not have a score for. This indicates that the AMD card can engage with modern graphics APIs, whereas the NVIDIA card's data shows no Vulkan capability at all. For the GTX 460M, the OpenCL score of 4282 is its sole benchmark, representing its average score of 4282. The R5 M330's average across both tests is 4170, lower than its OpenCL score alone because the Vulkan result of 4037 drags the mean down.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The GTX 460M is built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The R5 M330, by contrast, uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on a much more modern 28 nm process, also from TSMC. Its die is a tiny 56 mm², holding 690 million transistors, which results in a significantly higher density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. This means the AMD chip is far more efficient in terms of packing transistors into silicon area, despite having fewer total transistors.

Core configurations tell a story of different priorities. The GTX 460M has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs). The R5 M330 counters with 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The AMD card has 66% more shading units, which should help in compute-heavy tasks, but it has fewer TMUs and a third of the ROPs, which typically hurts fill-rate-bound scenarios. The clock speeds reflect their eras: the GTX 460M runs at a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the R5 M330 has a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Memory subsystems are starkly different. The GTX 460M uses 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M330 uses a larger 2 GB frame buffer, but it is DDR3 on a narrow 64-bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s. This is a 76% reduction in memory bandwidth for the AMD part, a critical disadvantage for texture-heavy games. The NVIDIA card's pixel rate is 5.400 GPixel/s and texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s, while the R5 M330 posts a higher pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s but a slightly lower texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the R5 M330 leads with 659.2 GFLOPS versus the GTX 460M's 518.4 GFLOPS.

The R5 M330 is a much more power-efficient part, with a TDP of just 18 W compared to the GTX 460M's 50 W. It is also an integrated graphics package (IGP) on a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, whereas the GTX 460M is an MXM module on PCIe 2.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12, but the R5 M330 supports version 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, plus Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 460M only lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 with no Vulkan support.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to clear divisions in use-case scenarios. The R5 M330 wins in raw compute throughput: its OpenCL score of 4302 edges out the GTX 460M's 4282, and its FP32 rating of 659.2 GFLOPS is 27% higher than the NVIDIA part's 518.4 GFLOPS. This makes the AMD card the better choice for general-purpose compute tasks, such as OpenCL-accelerated applications or Vulkan-based workloads, where its 320 shading units and modern architecture can flex their muscles.

The GTX 460M, however, holds a decisive advantage in memory bandwidth. Its 60.00 GB/s is more than four times the R5 M330's 14.40 GB/s, which is crucial for traditional rasterized gaming where filling large frame buffers with textures demands high bandwidth. The NVIDIA card's 192-bit bus and GDDR5 memory give it a substantial edge in scenarios that are bandwidth-limited, even if its raw compute is lower. Its texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s is also marginally higher than the AMD's 20.60 GTexel/s, reinforcing its suitability for texture-heavy workloads.

The R5 M330 wins on efficiency and features. Its 18 W TDP is 64% lower than the GTX 460M's 50 W, making it far better suited for thin-and-light laptops where thermals and battery life matter. It also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a modern API that the GTX 460M cannot use, giving it access to a broader range of contemporary software. The GTX 460M has no Vulkan support listed, which effectively limits it to older DirectX and OpenGL titles.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M has an average benchmark score of 4282, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has an average of 4170. However, the R5 M330's average is pulled down by its Vulkan score of 4037; its OpenCL score of 4302 is actually higher than the GTX 460M's 4282.

Q: How does the R5 M330 compare to the GTX 460M in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 460M is vastly superior, offering 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its 192-bit GDDR5 memory, whereas the R5 M330 manages only 14.40 GB/s via a 64-bit DDR3 bus. This gives NVIDIA a 76% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Does the R5 M330 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the R5 M330 has Vulkan 1.2.170 support and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4037. The GTX 460M does not list any Vulkan support in the data.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M has a TDP of 50 W. The AMD part is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 320 shading units, compared to 192 on the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M. This contributes to the AMD's higher FP32 compute of 659.2 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The R5 M330, on a 28 nm process, has a density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 460M, on a 40 nm process, has a density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD chip is much denser despite having fewer total transistors (690 million vs. 1,170 million).

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture with no outright winner for all scenarios. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the superior choice for compute-oriented tasks and modern API support. Its higher OpenCL score (4302 vs. 4282), 27% higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS), and exclusive Vulkan 1.2.170 support make it the more capable part for general-purpose GPU computing and newer software stacks. Its 18 W TDP also makes it a far better fit for power-constrained mobile devices.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, however, holds a critical advantage in memory bandwidth (60.00 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s) and a higher texture fill rate (21.60 GTexel/s vs. 20.60 GTexel/s). For legacy DirectX gaming that relies heavily on texture streaming and high-bandwidth frame buffers, the GTX 460M is arguably the stronger performer, despite its lower raw compute. Its 192-bit GDDR5 memory subsystem is simply in a different league from the R5 M330's narrow DDR3 interface.

Given the 25th-percentile ranking for both, neither is a performance champion. Buyers from the GTX 460M era would value its bandwidth for older games, while those needing a low-power, compute-capable mobile GPU with modern API support should favor the R5 M330. The R5 M330 wins the head-to-head on the only direct benchmark, but the GTX 460M's bandwidth dominance suggests it retains an edge in traditional graphics workloads. Ultimately, the R5 M330 is the more balanced and future-proof option, while the GTX 460M is a niche pick for bandwidth-sensitive legacy applications.