AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs AMD Radeon R5 M430 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 and AMD Radeon R5 M335 are both mobile graphics solutions from AMD’s Gem System generation, sharing the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm manufacturing process. Despite their nearly identical names and core configurations, benchmark data reveals a consistent performance gap favoring the M430, which wins both head-to-head tests. The M430 achieves an average benchmark score of 5018, placing it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the M335 scores 4752, sitting in the 28th percentile. These small percentile differences translate into measurable, though modest, performance advantages in real-world compute workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the R5 M430 wins both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M430 scores 5152 against the M335’s 4745, a delta of 8.6%. This is the largest margin between the two, indicating that the M430 holds a more substantial lead in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. The Vulkan test narrows the gap, with the M430 scoring 4884 versus the M335’s 4758, a 2.6% advantage. This suggests that while the M430 is faster in both APIs, the performance difference is less pronounced under Vulkan, possibly due to driver overhead or workload characteristics.

The M430’s wins are consistent with its higher memory clock speed and bandwidth. The M430 runs its DDR3 memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the M335 operates at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), producing 14.40 GB/s. That 11.1% bandwidth advantage likely explains the larger OpenCL delta, as compute tasks often scale with memory throughput. The Vulkan test, which may be more latency-sensitive than bandwidth-bound, shows a smaller but still positive gap.

Interestingly, the M335 fights back with higher core clocks. Its pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s and texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s, both exceeding the M430’s 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s. The M335’s FP32 throughput is also higher at 659.2 GFLOPS versus the M430’s 547.2 GFLOPS. Yet, these raw compute advantages do not translate into benchmark victories, suggesting that memory bandwidth is the limiting factor in these workloads. The data implies that the M430’s faster memory subsystem outweighs the M335’s faster shader array.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and use TSMC’s 28 nm process node. They share identical transistor counts of 690 million and a die size of 56 mm², resulting in the same transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The core configuration is also identical: 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. Neither GPU supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as these features are absent from the GCN 1.0 design.

The primary architectural difference lies in the memory subsystem. The M430 is equipped with 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, while the M335 has 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 64-bit bus. The M430’s memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus the M335’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This yields a bandwidth advantage of 16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a 10% difference. The M430’s larger frame buffer also allows it to handle higher-resolution textures and larger datasets without spilling to system memory, which could benefit certain compute workloads.

Beyond memory, the chips differ in their naming and generation. The M430 belongs to the R5 M400 series, while the M335 is from the R5 M300 series, though both are part of the Gem System generation. Their chip codenames differ — “Jet” for the M430 and “Exo” for the M335 — suggesting different physical implementations despite identical specs. Both share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. They also use the same PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and are both marked as end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon R5 M430. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average benchmark score (5018 vs. 4752), and holds a better percentile ranking (30th vs. 28th). The M430’s 8.6% OpenCL lead and 2.6% Vulkan lead are consistent, indicating that its advantages are not workload-specific but rather reflect a generally faster memory subsystem. For users who require OpenCL compute performance, the M430 is the stronger choice by a noticeable margin.

The M335, however, is not without merit. Its higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s), texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS) suggest that it could outperform the M430 in tasks that are purely shader-bound and do not rely heavily on memory bandwidth. In theory, applications that stress ALU operations or texture filtering might see better performance on the M335. The benchmark data does not capture such scenarios, but the specification sheet implies this possibility.

For gaming, the M430’s higher memory bandwidth and 4 GB frame buffer make it the safer recommendation, as modern titles often require more than 2 GB of VRAM. The M335’s 2 GB capacity could become a bottleneck at higher resolutions or with high-detail textures. The verdict is straightforward: the M430 is the superior all-around GPU, while the M335 serves as a lighter option with slightly higher raw compute rates.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields. Memory size is the most obvious: the M430 has 4 GB, the M335 has 2 GB. Memory clock speeds also diverge, with the M430 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) and the M335 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Consequently, memory bandwidth is 16.00 GB/s for the M430 and 14.40 GB/s for the M335.

Core clock rates differ as well, though the M335’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The M430 specifies a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. The M335 lists no base or boost clock, but its derived rates are higher: pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s, texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 of 659.2 GFLOPS, compared to the M430’s 6.840 GPixel/s, 17.10 GTexel/s, and 547.2 GFLOPS. This indicates the M335 likely runs at a higher clock speed, despite the missing values.

Other differences include the chip codename (“Jet” vs. “Exo”), the generation label (R5 M400 vs. R5 M300), and the slot width. The M430 is listed as “IGP” (integrated graphics processor), while the M335 has no slot width listed. The M335 also has a release date of October 20, 2015, whereas the M430 has no release date in the data. The M335 lists power connectors as “None,” while the M430 has no power connector information. Both share the same process node, transistor count, die size, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, bus interface, API support, and production status.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M430, with an average benchmark score of 5018 versus the M335’s 4752.

Q: How much faster is the M430 in OpenCL?

A: The M430 scores 5152 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 8.6% higher than the M335’s 4745.

Q: Does the M335 have any advantage in raw compute rates?

A: Yes, the M335 has higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s vs. 6.840 GPixel/s), texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s vs. 17.10 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS vs. 547.2 GFLOPS).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The M430 has 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the M335 has 14.40 GB/s, a 10% advantage for the M430.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 architecture, a 28 nm process node, and have 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has more video memory?

A: The M430 has 4 GB of DDR3, while the M335 has 2 GB of DDR3, both on a 64-bit bus.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins in compute-heavy scenarios that rely on memory bandwidth. Its 16.00 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB frame buffer give it a clear edge in OpenCL workloads, as evidenced by its 8.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. The larger memory capacity also makes it better suited for tasks that involve large datasets, such as video encoding, image processing, or machine learning inference, where exceeding 2 GB of VRAM is common. For gaming, the M430’s 4 GB capacity and higher bandwidth reduce texture streaming issues and allow for higher resolution textures without performance penalties. The data suggests that the M430 is the pick for anyone who values consistent performance across a range of applications.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335, despite losing both benchmarks, has theoretical advantages in shader-bound workloads. Its higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s) and texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s) suggest that it could outperform the M430 in fill-rate-limited scenarios, such as simple 2D rendering or older games with low memory requirements. The FP32 throughput of 659.2 GFLOPS is 20.5% higher than the M430’s, which could benefit compute tasks that are purely arithmetic and do not access memory frequently. However, the benchmark data does not confirm these wins, and the M335’s lower average score (4752 vs. 5018) indicates that such advantages are not realized in common workloads. The M335 is the choice only for users who specifically need higher raw clock rates and can tolerate lower memory bandwidth and capacity.