AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware: one is a power-sipping integrated-class part from the GCN 1.0 era, while the other is a dedicated, single-slot desktop card built on Kepler. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows the GTX 650 winning both head-to-head tests, but the R5 M330 holds its own in specific compute workloads, making the choice heavily dependent on the intended use case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce GTX 650 takes a clear lead in the two available Geekbench tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 650 scores 4545 against the R5 M330's 4302, a delta of -5.3% for the AMD part. This means the NVIDIA card is just over 5% faster in general-purpose compute through OpenCL, a modest but consistent advantage. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the GTX 650 posts 4524 versus 4037 for the R5 M330, a -10.8% delta. That is a substantial margin—nearly 11%—and it suggests the Kepler architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently than GCN 1.0 in this comparison.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The R5 M330 has an average score of 4170, while the GTX 650 averages 3823. That seems contradictory, but the averages include different test suites; the GTX 650 has an additional Geekbench Metal result of 2400, which drags its mean down. In the two tests where both GPUs were measured head-to-head, the GTX 650 wins both times. The data shows the NVIDIA part is the stronger performer in the shared workloads, but the AMD chip is not embarrassed—its OpenCL score is within 5.3% of a dedicated desktop card with a much higher TDP.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the R5 M330's 4170 average places it just 0.4% above the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151) and 0.5% below the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193). The GTX 650's 3823 average sits 0.3% below the GeForce MX110 (3834) and 0.8% above the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792). These percentile positions—25th for the R5 M330 and 22nd for the GTX 650 across all GPUs—suggest both are entry-level parts, but the R5 M330's higher average score indicates it punches slightly above its class in aggregated compute results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher peak compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 reaches 812.5 GFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 manages 659.2 GFLOPS. That is a 23% advantage for the GTX 650 in raw shader math.

Q: Does the R5 M330 ever win any benchmark comparison?

A: In the head-to-head tests, the R5 M330 wins zero out of two. However, its average benchmark score of 4170 is higher than the GTX 650's 3823, and it sits 1.9% above the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093) in the nearest rivals list, showing it is competitive in some aggregated metrics.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The GTX 650 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M330 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has over 5.5 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The R5 M330 is rated at 18 W TDP with no power connectors, while the GTX 650 draws 65 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector. The AMD part uses 72% less power, making it suitable for integrated or low-power systems.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The GTX 650 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the R5 M330 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are close, but NVIDIA's implementation is slightly newer in this pairing.

Q: Why does the GTX 650 have a lower average score despite winning head-to-head?

A: The GTX 650 includes a Geekbench Metal score of 2400 in its average, which is significantly lower than its OpenCL (4545) and Vulkan (4524) results. The R5 M330's average only includes its two higher scores, so the GTX 650's mean is pulled down by the Metal outlier.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is built on GCN 1.0, using the Exo chip, and belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 690 million transistors packed into a 56 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The GPU features 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. Its compute rates are 8.240 GPixel/s pixel fill and 20.60 GTexel/s texture fill, with FP32 performance capped at 659.2 GFLOPS.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 uses the GK106 chip, based on the Kepler architecture, from the GeForce 600 generation. It also uses a 28 nm TSMC process, but the die is much larger at 221 mm², housing 2,540 million transistors. The transistor density is slightly lower at 11.5 million per square millimeter, reflecting a less dense but larger design. The GTX 650 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 8.464 GPixel/s, texture rate is 33.86 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance reaches 812.5 GFLOPS. The architectural differences explain the performance gap: Kepler has 20% more shading units, 60% more TMUs, and double the ROPs, which directly contributes to its higher fill rates and compute throughput.

API support also diverges. The R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the GTX 650 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan versions are close, with the NVIDIA part at 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170 for AMD. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies. The R5 M330's predecessor is the Solar System series, with Polaris Mobile as its successor, while the GTX 650 follows the GeForce 500 line and leads to GeForce 700.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows stark contrasts across nearly every major category. Memory capacity favors the R5 M330 at 2 GB, but the GTX 650 counters with faster GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus versus DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. Bandwidth is the biggest divergence: 80.00 GB/s for NVIDIA versus 14.40 GB/s for AMD—a 5.5x difference. Clock speeds differ in nature: the R5 M330 has a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost of 1030 MHz, while the GTX 650 lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Power requirements are dramatically different. The R5 M330 is an IGP with an 18 W TDP and no power connectors, while the GTX 650 is a single-slot card with a 65 W TDP, one 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the R5 M330, whereas the GTX 650 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 650 has a physical length of 147 mm (5.8 inches); the R5 M330 has no listed dimensions. Release dates are roughly 18 months apart—the R5 M330 launched in May 2015, the GTX 650 in November 2013—and both are end-of-life. Neither has a launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a 5.3% lead in OpenCL and a 10.8% lead in Vulkan. It also offers over five times the memory bandwidth, 23% higher FP32 throughput, and double the ROPs and TMUs, which directly translate to better fill rates. For anyone building a desktop system with a 250 W PSU and needing consistent compute performance, the GTX 650 is the data-backed choice. Its 22nd percentile ranking is slightly below the R5 M330's 25th, but that is due to the Metal score dragging the average; in shared tests, it wins outright.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330, however, is not without merit. Its 18 W TDP makes it viable for portable devices where power is at a premium, and its 2 GB memory capacity doubles the GTX 650's 1 GB. Its average benchmark score of 4170 is higher than the GTX 650's 3823, and it ranks 0.4% above the Quadro K2100M and 1.9% above the RX 9060 XT 8 GB in rival comparisons. That suggests the R5 M330 excels in specific aggregated compute scenarios, despite losing the two direct tests. For a laptop or an IGP application where power draw and heat are critical constraints, the R5 M330 is the sensible pick—just expect it to trail the GTX 650 in Vulkan-heavy workloads by nearly 11%.

Ultimately, the choice hinges on priorities. If raw performance and memory bandwidth dominate the requirements, the GTX 650 wins on every shared benchmark. If power efficiency and a compact, connector-free design are more important, the R5 M330 is the only option that fits that profile. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports two different tools for two different jobs.