AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs AMD Radeon R7 M440 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 and AMD Radeon R5 M335 are both end-of-life mobile GPUs built on the same 28 nm TSMC process, but the recorded data shows they are not equals. The R7 M440 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher percentile against the full database of GPUs (32 versus 28), and pairs its newer GCN 3.0 architecture with twice the memory. The R5 M335 counters with slightly higher raw pixel and texture rates on paper, yet that advantage never materializes in the measured results. Between these two, the data points to the R7 M440 in almost every scenario.

The Verdict

Anyone choosing between these two chips should pick the R7 M440 unless a specific constraint rules it out. Benchmark results indicate it leads by 9.9 percent in Geekbench OpenCL and by a much larger 20.9 percent in Geekbench Vulkan, sweeping both recorded tests with two wins to zero. Its average benchmark score of 5483 sits meaningfully above the R5 M335's 4752, and its 32nd percentile versus all GPUs in the database edges out the older chip's 28th percentile.

The R5 M335's case rests on its theoretical output numbers: 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s against the M440's 7.128 GPixel/s and 17.82 GTexel/s. That edge did not translate into benchmark wins, which is the classic sign of an architecture bottleneck rather than a hardware gap the driver or compute path can exploit. Both are entry-level parts, both are end-of-life, and neither approaches modern performance territory, but the M440 is clearly the stronger of the two in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these chips is one generation of AMD's Graphics Core Next. The R7 M440 uses the Meso chip on GCN 3.0, while the R5 M335 uses the Exo chip on GCN 1.0. Both belong to the Gem System family of mobile parts, the M440 in the R7 M400 generation and the M335 in the R5 M300 generation, and both name Solar System as predecessor and Polaris Mobile as successor.

The implementation details differ sharply. The Meso chip carries 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, more than double the Exo chip's 690 million transistors on 56 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical, 12.4M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm², so the M440 simply spends far more silicon on the problem. Both chips were fabricated by TSMC on 28 nm.

Feature support also favors the newer part. Both report DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, but the M440's DirectX 12 feature level is 12_0 versus 11_1 on the M335. Neither chip has RT cores or tensor cores, which rules out hardware ray tracing and dedicated AI acceleration on both. The M440 additionally lists an FP16 rate of 570.2 GFLOPS at 1:1 with FP32, a figure the M335 entry does not record.

Release timing separates them by roughly half a year: the R5 M335 shipped in October 2015, the R7 M440 in May 2016.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons, and the R7 M440 won both.

Geekbench OpenCL: the M440 scored 5214 against the M335's 4745, a 9.9 percent win. OpenCL measures general compute throughput, and here the GCN 3.0 design's larger transistor budget translated into a nearly double-digit lead.

Geekbench Vulkan: the M440 scored 5751 against 4758, a 20.9 percent win. This is the more telling result. Vulkan is the modern low-overhead API path, and a gap this wide suggests the GCN 3.0 architecture and its higher DirectX feature level extract far more from contemporary drivers than the older GCN 1.0 design can. The M335's theoretical pixel and texture rate advantages, noted above, are simply absent from the measured outcomes.

Context from each chip's nearest rivals reinforces the picture. The M440's average score of 5483 lands it within a fraction of a percent of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, 0.3 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, minus 0.3 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, minus 0.5 percent), and the AMD Radeon 610M (5444, 0.7 percent). It is competitive in a cluster of modest mobile and workstation parts. The M335's average of 4752 places it near the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727, 0.5 percent), the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788, minus 0.7 percent), and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684, 1.5 percent). One anomaly in its rival list deserves mention: the database records an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB average of 4791 within the M335's nearest rivals, an entry that clearly conflicts with that card's standing elsewhere and should be treated as a dataset outlier rather than a genuine performance comparison.

Specification Differences

The two chips share a surprising amount of paper specification. Both have 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, 8 ROPs, a 64-bit DDR3 memory bus running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. Both report display outputs as "Portable Device Dependent," both are end-of-life, and neither has a recorded TDP or launch MSRP in the database.

Where they differ:

• Memory capacity: 4 GB on the M440 versus 2 GB on the M335, the single largest practical gap for gaming and texture-heavy workloads.
• Architecture: GCN 3.0 (Meso) versus GCN 1.0 (Exo).
• Transistors: 1,550 million versus 690 million.
• Die size: 125 mm² versus 56 mm².
• FP32 compute: 570.2 GFLOPS on the M440 versus 659.2 GFLOPS on the M335. Note the inversion here: the older chip has the higher theoretical shader figure, yet loses both benchmarks.
• Pixel rate: 7.128 GPixel/s on the M440 versus 8.240 GPixel/s on the M335.
• Texture rate: 17.82 GTexel/s on the M440 versus 20.60 GTexel/s on the M335.
• FP16: 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1) recorded only for the M440.
• DirectX feature level: 12_0 versus 11_1.
• Release date: May 2016 versus October 2015.
• Form factor details: the M440 lists slotWidth "IGP" with no power connectors specified; the M335 lists powerConnectors "None" with no slot width specified.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The Radeon R7 M440. It won both recorded benchmarks, leading by 9.9 percent in Geekbench OpenCL and 20.9 percent in Geekbench Vulkan, and its average score of 5483 beats the M335's 4752.

Q: The R5 M335 has higher theoretical pixel and texture rates. Does that matter?

A: Not according to the measurements. The M335 posts 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s against the M440's 7.128 GPixel/s and 17.82 GTexel/s, plus a higher FP32 figure of 659.2 versus 570.2 GFLOPS, yet it lost every head-to-head test. The GCN 1.0 architecture appears to be the limiting factor.

Q: How much memory does each have?

A: The M440 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus; the M335 has 2 GB of the same memory type and bus width. Bandwidth is identical at 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Do either of these support ray tracing?

A: No. Neither chip lists RT cores or tensor cores, so there is no hardware acceleration for ray tracing or AI workloads on either part.

Q: Are these still in production?

A: No. Both are flagged end-of-life in the database. The M335 was released in October 2015 and the M440 in May 2016, and both were eventually succeeded by Polaris Mobile.

Q: How do they compare to the wider GPU field?

A: The M440 sits in the 32nd percentile versus all GPUs in the database; the M335 sits in the 28th. Both are entry-level mobile parts.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R7 M440 is the pick for effectively every workload the database covers. Its 20.9 percent Vulkan win makes it the clear choice for modern API gaming and any application using Vulkan, and its 9.9 percent OpenCL win extends the lead to general compute. Its 4 GB of memory doubles the M335's capacity, which matters for texture-heavy games and multi-application scenarios where a 2 GB frame buffer fills quickly. Its DirectX 12 feature level of 12_0 also means fuller API support than the M335's 11_1, relevant for titles that gate features by feature level.

The Radeon R5 M335's wins exist only on the specification sheet. Its higher theoretical pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute figures suit it best as a low-power secondary chip in an older laptop, and its smaller 56 mm² die and 690 million transistor count describe a leaner, older design. Its rival cluster, including the R8 M445DX, R5 M255, and Quadro P400, confirms it operates in a lower tier than the M440's cluster of the Quadro M4000, GTX 765M, MX130, and Radeon 610M.

The bottom line from the recorded data: the R7 M440 delivers more measured performance, more memory, and a newer feature set. The R5 M335 offers only theoretical output figures that its older architecture cannot cash in. For anyone comparing laptops carrying these chips, the benchmark data makes the choice straightforward.