AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes a single direct head-to-head comparison between the AMD Radeon R5 M335 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GPU posts a score of 4934, while the AMD part manages 4745. That puts the GT 755M ahead by 3.8 percent, a modest but measurable margin. It is not a landslide, but it is a consistent advantage in the one workload where both were measured under identical conditions.

Looking at the broader database averages, the gap becomes more complicated. The Radeon R5 M335 carries an average benchmark score of 4752, which is actually higher than the GT 755M's 4033 average. That sounds contradictory, but the explanation lies in the composition of each GPU's benchmark suite. The AMD part was tested in both Geekbench OpenCL (4745) and Geekbench Vulkan (4758), and both results are closely clustered. The NVIDIA part, by contrast, was also tested in Geekbench Metal, where it scored 3132, a much weaker result that drags its overall average down to 4033 despite winning the OpenCL head-to-head.

This is an important nuance. If a workload runs through OpenCL, the GT 755M is the faster card. If the test uses Vulkan, only the AMD card has a recorded result, so the R5 M335 owns that field by default. If the test uses Metal, the GT 755M's recorded score of 3132 suggests that Apple's API is not a strength for this Kepler part, and the AMD card has no comparable Metal result in the database at all.

In terms of percentile placement, the R5 M335 sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GT 755M sits at the 24th percentile. That is a narrow spread, and both parts are firmly in entry-level territory. The R5 M335's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727, 0.5 percent slower) and the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788, 0.7 percent faster), which shows just how tightly packed this performance tier is. The GT 755M's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013, 0.5 percent slower) and the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075, 1 percent faster), again confirming that the 755M is surrounded by similarly performing hardware.

One particularly odd entry in the R5 M335's rival list is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which scores 4791 and is listed as 0.8 percent faster. That is a strange pairing, but the data is the data. The RTX 3080 12 GB's recorded average in this database is almost identical to the R5 M335's, which suggests that the benchmark suite used here does not scale the way one would expect across vastly different GPU classes. Similarly, the GT 755M's rival list includes the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093, only 1.5 percent faster. These anomalies are worth noting because they show that average scores in this database are not always a reliable proxy for real-world performance hierarchy.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and different foundry processes. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 is built on GCN 1.0, using the Exo chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the process node is identical. The differences start with the silicon itself.

The AMD chip packs 690 million transistors into a die size of 56 mm², which works out to a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA chip is much larger: 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, giving a density of 10.8 million per mm². So AMD fits more transistors per square millimeter, but NVIDIA uses a substantially bigger die overall. That larger die gives the GT 755M more raw resources to work with.

The compute configuration reflects this. The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 20 percent advantage in shaders, a 60 percent advantage in texture units, and a 100 percent advantage in ROPs for the NVIDIA part. The pixel rate is almost identical (8.240 GPixel/s for AMD versus 8.160 GPixel/s for NVIDIA), but the texture rate is not: 20.60 GTexel/s for the R5 M335 versus 32.64 GTexel/s for the GT 755M. In FP32 compute, the GT 755M produces 783.4 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part, a roughly 19 percent advantage.

Memory is where the two parts diverge most sharply. The R5 M335 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 755M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a sixfold difference in memory bandwidth, which is enormous. The NVIDIA card also has a much higher effective memory speed: 5.4 Gbps versus 1800 Mbps for the AMD card. In memory-bound workloads, the GT 755M should be expected to dominate.

The clock behavior also differs. The R5 M335 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, while the GT 755M runs at a 980 MHz base clock and a 1020 MHz boost clock. The GT 755M also carries a 50 W TDP, while the R5 M335 has no TDP recorded at all. The bus interface differs as well: the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

On the API front, both support DirectX 12, but with different feature levels. The R5 M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both list OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support is present on both, but the NVIDIA driver version is newer: 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170 for AMD.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner in raw compute and memory throughput: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, it has more shaders, more TMUs, more ROPs, a wider memory bus, faster memory, and six times the memory bandwidth. For anyone choosing between these two purely on recorded performance, the GT 755M is the stronger part in OpenCL and in any bandwidth-sensitive task.

However, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 has its own advantages. It has a higher average benchmark score overall (4752 versus 4033), driven by a strong Vulkan result and the absence of a weak Metal score. It also has a slightly better GPU percentile ranking (28th versus 24th), and it is a smaller, more transistor-dense chip. In Vulkan workloads, the R5 M335 is the only one of the two with a recorded score, so it is the safer choice for that API.

The GT 755M's weakness in Metal is a genuine concern. Its 3132 Metal score is far below its OpenCL result of 4934, and that single low score is what pulls its average down below the AMD part. If the target application uses Metal, the GT 755M is not the card to pick. If the target application uses OpenCL, the GT 755M's 3.8 percent lead over the R5 M335 is the deciding factor.

From a production status perspective, both are end-of-life parts. The GT 755M was released in 2015, the R5 M335 in 2015 as well. Neither is a current product. The R5 M335 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation and was preceded by Solar System and succeeded by Polaris Mobile. The GT 755M belongs to the GeForce 700M generation, preceded by GeForce 600M and succeeded by GeForce 800M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M335 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | Exo | GK107 |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,270 million |

| Die size | 56 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.3M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base clock | Not recorded | 980 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not recorded | 1020 MHz |

| Memory clock | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective | 1350 MHz, 5.4 Gbps effective |

| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 86.40 GB/s |

| Shading units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 8.160 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 32.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 783.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not recorded | 50 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release date | 2015-10-20 | 2013-06-24 |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4745. That gives the GT 755M a 3.8 percent lead.

Q: Why does the AMD Radeon R5 M335 have a higher average benchmark score than the GT 755M?

A: The R5 M335 has an average score of 4752 across Geekbench OpenCL (4745) and Geekbench Vulkan (4758). The GT 755M has an average of 4033 because its Geekbench Metal result of 3132 is much lower than its OpenCL result of 4934.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 provides 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 bus. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M provides 86.40 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR5 bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has 384 shading units. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has 320 shading units.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures for both GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M delivers 783.4 GFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, and the AMD Radeon R5 M335 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.