AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs AMD Radeon R8 M445DX Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 and AMD Radeon R8 M445DX are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD, separated by roughly seven months in release timing. The R5 M335 is a discrete part built on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R8 M445DX is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the newer GCN 3.0 architecture. Benchmark data shows these two GPUs are exceptionally close in raw performance, with the R5 M335 holding a razor-thin 0.5% average advantage over its rival, placing both in the bottom third of all GPUs ever tested.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the available benchmark data?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 edges out the R8 M445DX in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 4745 versus 4727, a 0.4% difference. Its average benchmark score of 4752 is also slightly higher than the R8's 4727.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to other low-end parts?

A: Both sit at the very bottom of the performance spectrum. The R5 M335 holds a 28th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the R8 M445DX sits at the 27th percentile. The R5 M335 is 0.7% slower than the AMD Radeon R5 M255 and 0.8% slower than a NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB in average score.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The R5 M335 uses the Exo chip with GCN 1.0 architecture and 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The R8 M445DX uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, packing 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: Do they have the same core configuration?

A: Yes, exactly. Both GPUs feature 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. The pixel and texture rates are nearly identical, with the R5 M335 posting 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s against the R8's 8.168 GPixel/s and 20.42 GTexel/s.

Q: How does memory configuration differ?

A: The R5 M335 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The R8 M445DX uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth described as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The R8 M445DX 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.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M335 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 18 points (4745 vs 4727). This gives it a perfect 1-0 record in direct comparisons. The R5's advantage is small but consistent across its two benchmark entries, with its Geekbench Vulkan score of 4758 sitting just above its OpenCL result. In terms of average performance across all tested workloads, the R5 M335 leads by 0.5%, a margin that will be imperceptible in real-world use but is measurable in synthetic tests.

The R8 M445DX has no benchmark wins to its name in this comparison. Its single OpenCL score of 4727 is lower than both of the R5 M335's scores. However, the R8 does offer architectural advantages that don't show up in raw compute numbers. Its GCN 3.0 architecture is a full generation newer, and it supports the more complete DirectX 12 (12_0) feature set. For applications that leverage newer API features, the R8 could theoretically hold an edge, though the benchmark data does not capture this.

Where the R8 M445DX wins is in integration. As an IGP, it requires no dedicated memory allocation and uses system shared memory, making it a zero-cost addition to a laptop motherboard. The R5 M335, by contrast, needs its own 2 GB DDR3 frame buffer and a PCIe 3.0 x8 connection. For system integrators looking to simplify designs, the R8's IGP nature is a practical advantage, even if its performance is marginally lower.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture. The R5 M335 is built on GCN 1.0, the original 2012-era design, using the Exo chip. The R8 M445DX is based on GCN 3.0, a significantly evolved architecture, using the Meso chip. This generational gap is reflected in their transistor counts: the R8 packs 1,550 million transistors versus the R5's 690 million, more than double. The die size grows correspondingly from 56 mm² to 125 mm², though transistor density remains nearly identical at 12.3M/mm² for the R5 and 12.4M/mm² for the R8, confirming both are on the same 28 nm TSMC process.

Despite the architectural differences, the compute core configuration is identical. Both have 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FP32 throughput is also nearly the same: 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 versus 653.4 GFLOPS for the R8. Interestingly, the R8 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (653.4 GFLOPS), while the R5 has no FP16 capability listed. This suggests the R8's newer architecture has improved compute flexibility, even if peak FP32 performance is slightly lower.

Clock behavior differs notably. The R5 M335 lists no base or boost clock in the data, only a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R8 M445DX, in contrast, has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 1021 MHz. This 241 MHz boost headroom explains how the R8 achieves near-parity with the R5 despite its more complex chip. The R5's fixed clocks are likely set conservatively for its discrete thermal envelope.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is memory. The R5 M335 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The R8 M445DX has system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning it borrows from the host system's RAM. This makes the R5 more predictable in performance, while the R8's performance depends heavily on the laptop's memory configuration.

Power and physical characteristics also differ. The R5 M335 has no power connectors and no listed TDP, while the R8 M445DX is classified as an IGP with a slot width of "IGP" and no power connectors. The R5 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, whereas the R8 is integrated directly on the motherboard with an "IGP" bus interface. Both have portable device dependent display outputs.

API support is another differentiator. The R5 M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R8 M445DX supports the full DirectX 12 (12_0) feature level. This means the R8 can handle more advanced DirectX 12 features, which could matter for newer game titles. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The R5 M335 has a defined release date of October 20, 2015, while the R8 M445DX came later on May 14, 2016. The R5 also has documented predecessors and successors (Solar System and Polaris Mobile, respectively), while the R8 has neither. Clock specifications stand out: the R5 lists no base or boost clock, while the R8 lists 780 MHz base and 1021 MHz boost. The R5's memory clock of 900 MHz and 1800 Mbps effective has no equivalent in the R8's spec sheet.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is remarkably close. The R5 M335 scores 4745 against the R8 M445DX's 4727, giving the R5 a 0.4% victory. In raw numbers, that is an 18-point gap, well within typical run-to-run variance for OpenCL workloads. The average benchmark scores tell the same story: the R5 averages 4752 across its two tests, while the R8 averages 4727 from its single test, a 0.5% difference.

The R5 M335's other benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan at 4758, is its strongest showing and slightly outperforms its own OpenCL result. This suggests the R5 is marginally better at Vulkan compute than OpenCL, though no Vulkan score exists for the R8 to make a direct comparison. Looking at the nearest rival data, both GPUs are bracketed by the same competitors. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4684, which is 1.5% behind the R5 and 0.9% behind the R8. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4788, sitting 0.7% above the R5 and 1.3% above the R8. Even a NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB posts a nearly identical average score of 4791, showing how these old mobile parts cluster tightly in synthetic tests.

The takeaway from the numbers is clear: these two GPUs are functionally equivalent in raw compute performance. The R5 M335 wins the head-to-head by the slimmest of margins, but its advantages in dedicated memory and slightly higher throughput are offset by the R8's newer architecture and full DirectX 12 support. For any workload that stresses memory bandwidth, the R5's 14.40 GB/s dedicated bandwidth gives it a theoretical edge over the R8's system-shared solution. For API-specific features, the R8's GCN 3.0 design is the more future-proof choice. In practice, a user would be hard-pressed to notice any difference between them in everyday laptop use.