AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 and NVIDIA GeForce 930M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from 2015, targeting the entry-level segment of that era. Benchmark data shows a split decision: NVIDIA wins the OpenCL test, while AMD wins decisively in Vulkan. The overall average scores tell a nuanced story, with the R5 M335 achieving a higher combined average of 4752 compared to the 930M's 4388, yet the 930M holds a better standing in raw compute workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is the Vulkan test, where the AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4758 against the NVIDIA GeForce 930M's 3729. This represents a 27.6% advantage for AMD, a massive margin that indicates a fundamental difference in API efficiency. The R5 M335's Vulkan score is nearly identical to its OpenCL score (4758 vs 4745), suggesting that AMD's GCN architecture translates its compute capabilities consistently across different APIs. In contrast, the 930M's Vulkan performance collapses relative to its OpenCL showing, dropping from 5046 to 3729 — a 26% regression that points to driver overhead or architectural limitations in handling Vulkan workloads.

The OpenCL results flip the script. There, the NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 5046 against the R5 M335's 4745, a 6% lead for NVIDIA. This is a meaningful gap in a legacy compute API that was widely used during this generation's lifespan. The 930M's OpenCL score is also its strongest benchmark result, while the R5 M335's OpenCL score is its weakest. When averaging the two tests, the R5 M335 comes out ahead at 4752 total, versus 4388 for the 930M — a difference that is entirely attributable to the 930M's poor Vulkan showing.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for these numbers. The R5 M335's average score of 4752 places it just 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727) and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788). The 930M's average of 4388 is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411) and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360). These tight deltas underscore that both chips occupy the same performance tier, with the R5 M335's higher average being driven by its Vulkan strength rather than overall compute superiority.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 5046, compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M335's 4745, giving NVIDIA a 6% lead.

Q: What happens in the Vulkan benchmark between these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins geekbench_vulkan with a score of 4758, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 3729. This results in a 27.6% advantage for AMD.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has an average benchmark score of 4752, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M averages 4388. The R5 M335 is ahead by roughly 8.3% on average.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU based on average score?

A: For the R5 M335, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727 (0.5% behind) and the AMD Radeon R5 M255 at 4788 (0.7% ahead). For the 930M, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M at 4411 is 0.5% ahead, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 at 4360 is 0.7% behind.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 ranks at the 28th percentile, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M ranks at the 26th percentile.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus. However, the R5 M335's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the 930M's memory runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) yielding 12.80 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses the "Exo" chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors onto a 56 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce 930M uses the "GM108S" chip based on Maxwell architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 1,020 million transistors spread across a larger 77 mm² die, giving a slightly higher density of 13.2M per mm².

The compute resources differ notably. The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The 930M has more shading units at 384, more TMUs at 24, but the same 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the R5 M335 achieves higher raw throughput rates: its pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s for the 930M, and its texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating also favors AMD at 659.2 GFLOPS versus NVIDIA's 421.6 GFLOPS.

Memory clocks differ as well, with the R5 M335's memory at 900 MHz versus 800 MHz on the 930M, producing bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s respectively. API support shows the R5 M335 supporting DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the 930M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and the newer Vulkan 1.4. Clock speeds for the R5 M335 are not listed, while the 930M runs at a fixed 549 MHz base and boost.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but divided picture. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute workloads, the NVIDIA GeForce 930M is the better choice, offering 6% higher performance in that specific test. Its OpenCL score of 5046 is the single highest benchmark result between the two GPUs. However, for any application that leverages Vulkan, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 is overwhelmingly superior, with a 27.6% advantage that makes the 930M virtually non-competitive in that API.

The R5 M335 also holds the edge in overall average performance at 4752 versus 4388, and it achieves higher pixel and texture fill rates despite having fewer shading units. The 930M counters with more shading units (384 vs 320) and more TMUs (24 vs 20), which may benefit certain legacy workloads. The R5 M335's higher percentile ranking (28th vs 26th) and its superior average score suggest that, on balance, it is the more capable part across mixed workloads. Users should note that the 930M's Vulkan deficiency is severe enough that any modern application using that API will perform dramatically worse on NVIDIA hardware.

Specification Differences

The key specifications where the AMD Radeon R5 M335 and NVIDIA GeForce 930M differ are as follows:

• Chip: AMD uses "Exo," while NVIDIA uses "GM108S"
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus Maxwell
• Generation: "Gem System (R5 M300)" versus "GeForce 900M"
• Transistors: 690 million versus 1,020 million
• Die Size: 56 mm² versus 77 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² versus 13.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not listed versus 549 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not listed versus 549 MHz
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) versus 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective)
• Memory Bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s
• Shading Units: 320 versus 384
• TMUs: 20 versus 24
• Pixel Rate: 8.240 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.60 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s
• FP32: 659.2 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS
• TDP: Not listed versus 33 W
• Slot Width: Not listed versus "IGP"
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 versus 1.4
• Release Date: 2015-10-20 versus 2015-03-12
• Predecessor: "Solar System" versus "GeForce 800M"
• Successor: "Polaris Mobile" versus "GeForce 10 Mobile"

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins in scenarios that leverage Vulkan, where its 27.6% advantage over the 930M is decisive. It also wins on raw fill rate metrics — the 8.240 GPixel/s pixel rate is 87% higher than the 930M's 4.392 GPixel/s, and the 20.60 GTexel/s texture rate is 56% higher. Its FP32 compute of 659.2 GFLOPS is substantially ahead of the 930M's 421.6 GFLOPS, and its higher memory bandwidth (14.40 GB/s vs 12.80 GB/s) supports these throughput advantages. The R5 M335 also edges out the 930M on average benchmark score (4752 vs 4388) and percentile ranking (28th vs 26th).

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins in the OpenCL benchmark with a 6% lead, scoring 5046 versus 4745. Its higher shading unit count (384 vs 320) and TMU count (24 vs 20) may give it an advantage in certain geometry-heavy or shader-bound workloads, even if its overall throughput rates are lower. The 930M also supports the newer Vulkan 1.4 API specification versus the R5 M335's 1.2.170, which could matter for compatibility with the latest Vulkan extensions, despite its poor raw Vulkan performance. Its lower TDP of 33 W (where the R5 M335's TDP is not listed) suggests it may be more power-efficient, and its earlier release date of March 2015 versus October 2015 means it had a longer market presence in the same generation.