AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA GeForce 830M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent winner in every measured test: the AMD Radeon R5 M335 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce 830M across both benchmark workloads. The largest gap appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the AMD part scores 4758 against NVIDIA’s 3590, a difference of 24.5%. This is not a marginal lead; it is a substantial margin that should translate into noticeably smoother frame pacing in Vulkan-based applications and games.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 again takes the lead, scoring 4745 versus 4324 for the NVIDIA GeForce 830M. The delta here is 8.9%, which is more modest than the Vulkan gap but still a decisive advantage. For OpenCL compute workloads, the AMD part holds a comfortable edge, though the NVIDIA GPU is not entirely outclassed in this discipline.

Looking at the average benchmark score, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 lands at 4752, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M sits at 3957. That places the AMD part roughly 20% higher on average across the two recorded tests. The NVIDIA GPU’s average score places it at the 24th percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the AMD part reaches the 28th percentile. While both are entry-level mobile parts, the AMD chip occupies a slightly higher overall performance tier.

The nearest rival data for the NVIDIA GeForce 830M reinforces its position. Its average score of 3957 is within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956), within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953), and within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964). The only rival that beats it in this cluster is the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977, which is 0.5% ahead. This tells us the 830M is not an outlier at the bottom; it is simply a mid-pack performer in its immediate neighborhood.

For the AMD Radeon R5 M335, the nearest rivals show a different story. Its 4752 average is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727), 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788), and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791). The last comparison is unusual because the RTX 3080 12 GB is a desktop flagship, but in this database entry, the average scores are close. The AMD part also leads the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684) by 1.5%. Within this cluster, the R5 M335 performs like a solid mid-tier mobile GPU, not a bottom-feeder.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M uses the GM108 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture. Maxwell was designed for efficiency and scaling in low-power parts, and the 830M reflects that with 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The chip is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, using 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses the Exo chip, built on the Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture. GCN 1.0 was AMD’s first-generation unified shader design, and it has a different layout than Maxwell. The R5 M335 packs 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The chip is also fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but it uses fewer transistors: 690 million on a smaller 56 mm² die. That yields a lower transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter.

The shading unit counts are telling. The AMD part has 320 shading units versus 256 on the NVIDIA part, a 25% advantage in raw shader count. However, the NVIDIA part has a higher transistor count and larger die, which suggests Maxwell’s architecture is doing more with fewer, but more efficient, execution units. The texture rate data supports this: the AMD part achieves 20.60 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s for NVIDIA, a 12% lead. The pixel rate, however, favors NVIDIA: 9.200 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s, a 11.7% lead for the 830M.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12, but the AMD part lists 12 (11_1) while NVIDIA lists 12 (11_0). OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. Vulkan support differs: NVIDIA lists 1.4, while AMD lists 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part has a higher Vulkan API version, yet the AMD part scores far higher in the Vulkan benchmark, which suggests that driver maturity and hardware design matter more than the API version number alone.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins in every benchmark recorded in the database, so the use-case split is straightforward. For OpenCL compute, the AMD part is 8.9% ahead. For Vulkan graphics, it is 24.5% ahead. If you are running applications that use OpenCL for general-purpose GPU compute, or Vulkan for rendering, the R5 M335 is the stronger choice based on the recorded measurements.

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M does have one theoretical advantage in the raw specification data: its pixel rate is higher at 9.200 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s. This suggests that in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as simple 2D rendering or low-resolution effects, the 830M could potentially perform better. However, no benchmark in the database isolates pixel throughput, so this remains a theoretical edge rather than a measured one.

The AMD part also has a higher texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS). These are the metrics that scale with raw compute work. The AMD part’s 320 shading units give it a structural advantage in parallel workloads, which is reflected in the benchmark scores.

For users who play Vulkan-based games, the R5 M335 is the clear pick. For users who run OpenCL acceleration in productivity tools, the R5 M335 again takes the lead. The NVIDIA part is not without merit, but the measured data shows no workload in which it wins.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields. The most obvious is the architecture: NVIDIA uses Maxwell, AMD uses GCN 1.0. The chip names differ as well: GM108 for NVIDIA, Exo for AMD. The generation labels are different: GeForce 800M for NVIDIA, Gem System (R5 M300) for AMD.

The transistor counts and die sizes are different. NVIDIA’s GM108 uses 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while AMD’s Exo uses 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Transistor density is 13.2M / mm² for NVIDIA and 12.3M / mm² for AMD. The NVIDIA chip is physically larger and more complex, yet it delivers lower benchmark scores.

The shading unit count differs: 256 for NVIDIA, 320 for AMD. The texture mapping unit count differs: 16 for NVIDIA, 20 for AMD. The raster operation unit count is the same at 8 for both. The pixel rate differs: 9.200 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, 8.240 GPixel/s for AMD. The texture rate differs: 18.40 GTexel/s for NVIDIA, 20.60 GTexel/s for AMD. The FP32 throughput differs: 588.8 GFLOPS for NVIDIA, 659.2 GFLOPS for AMD.

The clock speeds are recorded differently. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1082 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. The AMD part has no recorded base or boost clock in the data. Both have the same memory clock: 900 MHz, with 1800 Mbps effective. Memory size is identical at 2 GB, type is DDR3 for both, bus width is 64 bit for both, and bandwidth is 14.40 GB/s for both.

The TDP is listed as 33 W for NVIDIA, while AMD has no recorded TDP. The slot width is IGP for NVIDIA, while AMD has no recorded value. Both use no power connectors. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The release dates differ: NVIDIA was released on 2014-03-11, AMD on 2015-10-20. Both are end-of-life. NVIDIA’s predecessor is GeForce 700M and successor is GeForce 900M. AMD’s predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has an average benchmark score of 4752, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M has an average of 3957.

Q: How big is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4758, which is 24.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 830M’s 3590.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64 bit bus, with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth and a 900 MHz memory clock.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has 320 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M has 256.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M has a pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M335’s 8.240 GPixel/s.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher Vulkan API version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M lists Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 lists Vulkan 1.2.170. Despite this, the AMD part scores higher in the Vulkan benchmark.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 beats the NVIDIA GeForce 830M in both recorded benchmarks, with a 8.9% lead in OpenCL and a 24.5% lead in Vulkan. The average score difference is roughly 20% in favor of AMD. If you are choosing between these two mobile GPUs based solely on measured performance, the R5 M335 is the stronger option.

The NVIDIA part does have some specification advantages. Its pixel rate is higher, its transistor count is larger, and its die is bigger. It also has a higher Vulkan API version and a higher OpenGL version is identical. But these specifications do not translate into benchmark wins. The AMD part’s higher shading unit count, higher texture rate, and higher FP32 throughput appear to matter more in the workloads tested.

The percentile data tells a similar story. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 sits at the 28th percentile. Neither is a high-performance part, but the AMD chip is measurably better within the entry-level mobile segment.

For a user who prioritizes compute performance or Vulkan gaming, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 is the clear choice. For a user who might be in a fill-rate-bound scenario, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M has a theoretical edge in pixel throughput, but no measured benchmark supports that advantage. The verdict from the database is simple: pick the AMD Radeon R5 M335 if you want better measured performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.