AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs AMD Radeon R7 M340 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 and AMD Radeon R5 M335 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD’s Gem System generation, aimed at entry-level laptops. The benchmark data shows a clear, if modest, overall performance advantage for the R7 M340, which wins both head-to-head tests and posts a higher average benchmark score. The R7 M340 achieves an average score of 5063, placing it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M335 trails with an average of 4752, sitting at the 28th percentile. The performance gap is consistent, but the magnitude is small enough that the choice between them depends heavily on specific workload priorities, as the R5 M335 does retain a narrow edge in raw pixel throughput.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon R7 M340 is the stronger choice for users prioritizing overall compute performance and modern API compatibility. It wins both recorded benchmarks, with a 3.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a more substantial 9.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 5063 is 6.5% higher than the R5 M335’s 4752, a difference that is consistent with its higher memory clock, faster effective memory speed, and more modern architecture. For any workload that leverages Vulkan, the R7 M340 is the clear pick, as its 5193 Vulkan score represents its best result and its largest margin of victory.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 is not without merit, but its advantages are narrow and specific. The data shows it has a slightly higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s vs. 8.168 GPixel/s) and texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s vs. 20.42 GTexel/s), as well as marginally higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS vs. 653.4 GFLOPS). These differences are fractions of a percent and are unlikely to be perceptible in real-world scenarios. The R5 M335’s only real claim to preference is its lower transistor count and smaller die size, which could theoretically imply lower power draw, though no TDP data is available to confirm this. Given the benchmark results, the R7 M340 is the recommended part for nearly all use cases.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs, despite being from the same generation, are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon R7 M340 is based on the Meso chip using the GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm TSMC process. It integrates 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million transistors per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses the Exo chip with the older GCN 1.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with significantly fewer resources: 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, for a density of 12.3 million per mm². The R7 M340’s newer architecture and larger die explain its superior performance in modern API tests.

The memory subsystems differ as well, although both use 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The R7 M340 runs its memory at 1000 MHz, translating to 2 Gbps effective, and achieves a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s. The R5 M335 runs its memory at 900 MHz, or 1800 Mbps effective, resulting in a lower bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. This 11.1% bandwidth deficit is a primary contributor to the R5 M335’s lower benchmark scores. Core configuration is identical: both have 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R7 M340’s boost clock is 1021 MHz, and its base clock is 943 MHz, while the R5 M335’s clocks are not specified in the data.

API support is another differentiator. The R7 M340 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M335 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M340 also lists FP16 performance at 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1), a feature absent from the R5 M335’s data. The R5 M335 does list a power connector of "None" and display outputs as "Portable Device Dependent," which are details not provided for the R7 M340.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 wins in all compute and API-specific benchmarks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4932 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 5193 are both higher than the R5 M335’s 4745 and 4758, respectively. The Vulkan margin is particularly notable at 9.1%, suggesting the GCN 3.0 architecture is better optimized for low-level, multi-threaded graphics workloads. Its higher memory bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s also gives it an advantage in bandwidth-sensitive tasks, such as texture streaming at higher resolutions.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335’s theoretical wins are limited to raw throughput metrics. It posts a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s, which is 0.9% higher than the R7 M340’s 8.168 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s is 0.9% higher than the R7 M340’s 20.42 GTexel/s, and its FP32 performance of 659.2 GFLOPS is 0.9% higher than the R7 M340’s 653.4 GFLOPS. These differences are so small that they are unlikely to translate into any real-world performance advantage. In practical terms, the R5 M335’s only genuine edge is its smaller die size (56 mm² vs. 125 mm²) and lower transistor count, which may indicate lower manufacturing complexity, but this has no bearing on user-facing performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M340 has an average benchmark score of 5063, which is 6.5% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M335’s average score of 4752.

Q: How much faster is the R7 M340 in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The R7 M340 scores 5193 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 9.1% higher than the R5 M335’s score of 4758.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, but the R7 M340 runs at 1000 MHz with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M335 runs at 900 MHz with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Is there any metric where the R5 M335 outperforms the R7 M340?

A: Yes, the R5 M335 has marginally higher theoretical rates: 8.240 GPixel/s pixel rate, 20.60 GTexel/s texture rate, and 659.2 GFLOPS FP32, all about 0.9% higher than the R7 M340.

Q: What are the DirectX version differences?

A: The R7 M340 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The R7 M340 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, compared to the R5 M335’s 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data consists of two Geekbench tests, both won by the AMD Radeon R7 M340. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 M340 scores 4932 against the R5 M335’s 4745, a delta of 3.9%. This margin is modest but consistent with the R7 M340’s higher memory bandwidth and newer GCN 3.0 architecture. The R5 M335’s slightly higher FP32 rating (659.2 GFLOPS vs. 653.4 GFLOPS) does not translate into an OpenCL win, indicating that memory bandwidth and driver efficiency are more impactful than raw FLOPs in this test.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a more pronounced advantage for the R7 M340. It scores 5193, while the R5 M335 manages only 4758, resulting in a 9.1% delta. This is the largest performance gap in the entire comparison and suggests that the R7 M340’s GCN 3.0 architecture is significantly better suited to Vulkan’s low-overhead API model. The R7 M340’s Vulkan score is also its best result across both tests, while the R5 M335’s Vulkan score is only slightly higher than its OpenCL score. This test alone justifies choosing the R7 M340 for any application that utilizes Vulkan.

Looking at the broader competitive context, the R7 M340’s average score of 5063 places it in a dead heat with several rivals. It matches the AMD Radeon R7 240 exactly (0% delta), is 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034), 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). The R5 M335’s average of 4752 is similarly clustered, being 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727), 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788), 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791), and 1.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684). These figures show that both GPUs are firmly in the entry-level segment, with the R7 M340 consistently sitting at the upper edge of that performance band.