AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in this comparison. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M wins both benchmark tests in the database, securing a 2-0 result over the AMD Radeon R5 M335. The most decisive victory comes in the OpenCL workload, where the NVIDIA part scores 5604 against AMD's 4745. That is an 18.1% advantage, a substantial margin that indicates a major performance gap in compute-heavy tasks. The Vulkan test tells a different story, however, as the gap narrows considerably. The GTX 760M scores 4868, while the R5 M335 trails at 4758, a delta of just 2.3%. This suggests that while the NVIDIA GPU is consistently faster, the two parts are much closer in API-level performance under Vulkan, likely due to driver overhead or workload characteristics that favor the AMD architecture's design.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the GTX 760M sits at 5236, while the R5 M335 averages 4752. That difference reinforces the OpenCL result as the more representative measure of their overall compute capability. The NVIDIA GPU's average is roughly 10% higher, which is consistent with a part that has more shading units and a wider memory bus. The Vulkan score for the GTX 760M (4868) is actually lower than its OpenCL score (5604), while the R5 M335 shows the opposite trend, scoring 4758 in Vulkan versus 4745 in OpenCL, nearly identical. This indicates the AMD part performs consistently across both APIs, whereas the NVIDIA GPU shows a larger drop in Vulkan performance relative to OpenCL, hinting at possible driver maturity issues or architectural inefficiencies in that specific test.

When placed against the wider field, the GTX 760M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M335 ranks at the 28th percentile. The percentile gap is small, but the raw score difference is not trivial. The nearest rivals for the GTX 760M include the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (avg score 5211, delta 0.5%), the GeForce 940M (5284, delta -0.9%), the GTX 980M (5308, delta -1.3%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161, delta 1.5%). The GTX 760M effectively trades blows with these parts, sitting within 1.5% of all four, which shows it is a mid-pack performer in its class. For the R5 M335, its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727, delta 0.5%), the R5 M255 (4788, delta -0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791, delta -0.8%), and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684, delta 1.5%). The inclusion of a high-end desktop GPU like the RTX 3080 12 GB in that list is notable, as it indicates the R5 M335's score range overlaps with a vastly more powerful part, but that is a quirk of the database's scoring rather than a reflection of real-world gaming equivalence.

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the GTX 760M leads in both recorded tests, with the OpenCL delta being the dominant factor in the overall comparison. The Vulkan result, while a win, is narrow enough that it should not be overinterpreted. For users running compute workloads via OpenCL, the NVIDIA GPU is the clear choice. For Vulkan-based applications, the difference is minor and may not be perceptible in practice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M averages 5236 across all recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 averages 4752. The GTX 760M leads by roughly 484 points, which is about a 10% advantage.

Q: How big is the performance gap in the OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 760M scores 5604 in OpenCL, while the R5 M335 scores 4745. This gives the NVIDIA GPU an 18.1% lead, which is the largest delta between the two parts in any recorded test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M335 win any benchmark?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, OpenCL and Vulkan, and the GTX 760M wins both. The R5 M335 has zero wins in the comparison.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 760M scores 4868 in Vulkan, and the R5 M335 scores 4758. The NVIDIA GPU leads by 2.3%, a much smaller margin than the 18.1% gap seen in OpenCL.

Q: What percentile ranking does each GPU hold?

A: The GTX 760M is at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M335 is at the 28th percentile. Both are low-to-mid range parts, but the NVIDIA GPU sits slightly higher in the overall distribution.

Q: Are the nearest rivals for each GPU similar in performance?

A: For the GTX 760M, the nearest rivals are the Quadro 4000M (5211), GeForce 940M (5284), GTX 980M (5308), and R7 M260X (5161), all within 1.5% of its score. For the R5 M335, the nearest rivals are the R8 M445DX (4727), R5 M255 (4788), RTX 3080 12 GB (4791), and Quadro P400 (4684), all within 1.5% as well.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families, and that is the root of most performance differences. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M uses the Kepler architecture, built around the GK106S chip. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses GCN 1.0, built around the chip codenamed Exo. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The Kepler chip packs 2,540 million transistors into a die size of 221 mm², giving a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². The GCN 1.0 chip is far smaller, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.3 million per mm². Despite the higher transistor density on the AMD chip, the NVIDIA part has nearly four times the transistor count, which explains its larger die and generally higher performance ceiling.

The shading resources differ substantially. The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 2.4x advantage in shading units for NVIDIA, a 3.2x advantage in TMUs, and a 2x advantage in ROPs. Pixel rate for the GTX 760M is 11.50 GPixel/s, versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M335. Texture rate is 46.02 GTexel/s against 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,104.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA, versus 659.2 GFLOPS for AMD. In every raw throughput metric, the GTX 760M leads by a significant margin.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The GTX 760M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M335 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4.45x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part, which is likely the single biggest factor in its OpenCL win. The memory clock for the GTX 760M is 1002 MHz, with 4 Gbps effective data rate. The R5 M335 runs at 900 MHz, with 1800 Mbps effective. The narrower bus and slower memory type on the AMD part severely limit its ability to feed its compute units, which is a classic bottleneck in low-end mobile GPUs.

The API support also differs. The GTX 760M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R5 M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX feature level is slightly higher on the AMD part (11_1 versus 11_0), which could matter for certain legacy applications, but the Vulkan versions are nearly identical, with the NVIDIA part having a slightly newer revision. Neither GPU has ray tracing or tensor cores, as both are from eras before those features were introduced.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M | AMD Radeon R5 M335 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GK106S | Exo |

| Generation | GeForce 700M | Gem System (R5 M300) |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 628 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 719 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.13 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 320 |

| TMUs | 64 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.50 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.02 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,104.4 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2013-05-29 | 2015-10-20 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 800M | Polaris Mobile |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Not listed |

The GTX 760M has a defined TDP of 55 W, while the R5 M335 has no TDP listed. The NVIDIA part uses an MXM module form factor, which is common in laptop designs, while the AMD part has no slot width listed. The bus interface differs as well, with the GTX 760M using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the R5 M335 using PCIe 3.0 x8. Power connectors are listed as "None" for both, and display outputs are portable-device dependent for both.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is the faster GPU in this pairing. It wins both recorded benchmarks, holds a higher average score, and sits at a higher percentile ranking. The OpenCL delta of 18.1% is decisive, and the Vulkan delta of 2.3%, while small, still favors NVIDIA. Users who prioritize compute performance, which is what these benchmark tests measure, should select the GTX 760M without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 is not without merit, but its advantages are limited to non-performance attributes. It is a smaller chip, which may translate to lower power draw, though no TDP is listed to confirm that. It also has a newer release date (2015-10-20 versus 2013-05-29) and a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0). However, none of these factors appear in the benchmark scores. The recorded data shows the R5 M335 trailing in both tests, and its average score of 4752 is below the GTX 760M's 5236. For any user choosing between these two based on the database results, the GTX 760M is the logical pick.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M wins in every measured category. Its OpenCL score of 5604 versus 4745 is the standout result, making it the clear choice for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The 18.1% advantage is substantial enough to be noticeable in real applications, whether that is rendering, physics simulation, or other GPGPU tasks. Its Vulkan win, while narrow at 2.3%, still puts it ahead in that API as well. The GTX 760M also wins on raw specifications: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher pixel and texture rates, higher FP32 throughput, and vastly higher memory bandwidth. These are the metrics that drive performance, and the NVIDIA part dominates all of them.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has no recorded benchmark wins. Its closest performance to the GTX 760M comes in the Vulkan test, where the 2.3% delta is small enough that the two parts could feel similar in light Vulkan-based workloads. The R5 M335 also has a smaller die (56 mm² versus 221 mm²) and fewer transistors (690 million versus 2,540 million), which could make it a more power-efficient option in theory, though no TDP is listed to confirm. Its newer release date and higher DirectX feature level are minor differences that do not show up in the benchmark results. In practical terms, the R5 M335 is best suited for basic display output and light acceleration, while the GTX 760M is the part to choose when performance matters.