AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and the AMD Radeon R5 M335 represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics from different eras. The GTX 765M, built on the Kepler architecture, arrived in 2013, while the R5 M335, using GCN 1.0, followed in 2015. Direct comparison data places the GTX 765M ahead in both recorded compute benchmarks, though the gap is not uniform across workloads. The database records the GTX 765M with an average benchmark score of 5,501, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M335 averages 4,752, which lands in the 28th percentile. These percentile positions show both parts sit in the lower-middle range of the overall GPU landscape, but the NVIDIA part holds a clear edge in raw compute output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head records contain exactly two shared tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the GTX 765M scores 7,176 against the R5 M335’s 4,745. That is a 51.2% advantage for the NVIDIA part. The magnitude of this lead is substantial, more than half again as much performance in a compute API that stresses general-purpose shader throughput. In Vulkan, the GTX 765M scores 6,714 versus 4,758 for the AMD part, a 41.1% gap. While the lead narrows in Vulkan compared to OpenCL, it remains decisive. The R5 M335’s Vulkan score is nearly identical to its OpenCL score, differing by only 13 points, while the GTX 765M drops by 462 points when moving from OpenCL to Vulkan. This suggests the NVIDIA architecture handles the older OpenCL workload relatively better, but still maintains a strong position in the newer Vulkan API.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides context for these scores. The GTX 765M’s average of 5,501 sits within a very tight cluster: the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 averages 5,508, a delta of -0.1%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 averages 5,483, a delta of 0.3%. The AMD FirePro M4000 is 0.7% higher at 5,537, and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is 0.6% lower at 5,467. Essentially, the GTX 765M trades places with several contemporary mobile parts within a 1% band. The R5 M335’s average of 4,752 is surrounded by similarly close competitors: the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4,727 (0.5% lower), the AMD Radeon R5 M255 at 4,788 (0.7% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4,791 (0.8% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4,684 (1.5% lower). The presence of the RTX 3080 12 GB in that list is a reminder that the R5 M335’s score is not far from a modern high-end desktop part in this particular synthetic test, though that reflects the test’s weighting more than real-world gaming equivalence.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 765M wins both recorded head-to-head tests, giving it 2 wins against 0 for the R5 M335. The largest margin is in OpenCL, where the 51.2% delta represents the single biggest performance gap between the two. In Vulkan, the 41.1% delta still favors NVIDIA but is less pronounced. If the pattern holds across other workloads, the GTX 765M is the stronger choice for any application that leverages general-purpose compute or modern graphics APIs. The R5 M335 does not win any benchmark in the comparison set, so there is no recorded workload where the AMD part takes the lead.

For specific use cases, the data suggests the GTX 765M is better suited for tasks like OpenCL acceleration, which commonly appears in productivity and content-creation software. The Vulkan result also indicates the NVIDIA part handles modern game engines and compute workloads built on that API. The R5 M335, with its lower scores, would struggle in those same scenarios, though its performance is not categorically unusable; it simply trails by a wide margin. The R5 M335’s closest rival, the Radeon R8 M445DX, scores nearly identically, and the Radeon R5 M255 is only 0.7% higher, so the R5 M335 is representative of a specific performance tier among low-end AMD mobile parts.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different designers and different architectural generations. The GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip, a 28 nm Kepler design built by TSMC. It packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The R5 M335 uses the Exo chip, also 28 nm and also from TSMC, but with only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a higher density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The smaller die and lower transistor count reflect a more modest design, and the density difference is minor despite the much larger absolute size of the NVIDIA chip.

Core counts differ sharply. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These figures explain the compute gap: the GTX 765M has 2.4 times as many shading units and 3.2 times as many TMUs, while its ROP count is double. The pixel rate for the GTX 765M is 13.81 GPixel/s versus 8.24 GPixel/s for the AMD part. Texture rate is 55.23 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput, a key metric for general compute, is 1,325.6 GFLOPS for NVIDIA and 659.2 GFLOPS for AMD, almost exactly a 2:1 ratio.

Memory architecture also diverges. The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M335 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, which yields only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4.45x difference in memory bandwidth, a massive gap that affects any bandwidth-sensitive workload, including texture-heavy scenes and frame buffer operations. The memory clock is recorded at 1002 MHz for NVIDIA (4 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz for AMD (1800 Mbps effective). The GTX 765M’s clock speeds are 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost, while the R5 M335 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database.

Feature support shows minor differences. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 765M lists “12 (11_0)” while the R5 M335 lists “12 (11_1)”, indicating a slightly higher feature level for the AMD part in that API. OpenGL 4.6 is available on both. Vulkan support exists on both, with the GTX 765M at version 1.2.175 and the R5 M335 at 1.2.170, a very small difference. Power connectors are listed as “None” for both, and display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent” for both, reflecting their laptop-oriented designs. The GTX 765M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and an MXM Module slot width, while the R5 M335 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The GTX 765M has a TDP of 75 W; the R5 M335 has no TDP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M averages 5,501, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 averages 4,752. The GTX 765M also ranks in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs versus the 28th percentile for the AMD part.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 765M scores 7,176 in Geekbench OpenCL, and the R5 M335 scores 4,745. That is a 51.2% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the R5 M335 win any benchmark against the GTX 765M?

A: No. The head-to-head data records 2 wins for the GTX 765M and 0 wins for the R5 M335 across the two shared tests.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The GTX 765M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M335 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, while the R5 M335 has 320. The NVIDIA part also has 64 TMUs versus 20, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. The GTX 765M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R5 M335 lists DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M outperforms the AMD Radeon R5 M335 in every measured category. The 51.2% lead in OpenCL and the 41.1% lead in Vulkan are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamentally faster part. The GTX 765M also holds advantages in raw specifications that contribute to real-world performance: more shading units, more texture units, more ROPs, higher pixel and texture rates, more than double the FP32 throughput, and over four times the memory bandwidth. The R5 M335 does have a slightly higher DirectX 12 feature level (11_1 versus 11_0) and a marginally newer Vulkan version, but these API-level distinctions do not translate into a benchmark win.

For a user comparing these two in a laptop context, the GTX 765M is the choice for any task that relies on compute performance, whether that is OpenCL-accelerated applications or Vulkan-based games. The R5 M335’s lower power envelope, suggested by its unspecified TDP and smaller die, might suit a thinner chassis, but the database does not record any performance metric where the AMD part comes out ahead. The GTX 765M’s nearest rivals, such as the MX130 and R7 M440, sit within 0.3% of its average score, meaning it is competitive with slightly newer low-end parts. The R5 M335’s closest neighbors, including the R5 M255 and R8 M445DX, are similarly close to its average, but that average is simply lower. In the absence of any recorded win for the AMD part, the verdict is straightforward: the GTX 765M is the stronger mobile GPU in this comparison.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M | AMD Radeon R5 M335 |

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

| Chip | GK106 | Exo |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| 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 | 797 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 863 MHz | Not recorded |

| 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 | 13.81 GPixel/s | 8.24 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 55.23 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,325.6 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | Not recorded |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 32 | 28 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 5,501 | 4,752 |

| OpenCL Score | 7,176 | 4,745 |

| Vulkan Score | 6,714 | 4,758 |

The GTX 765M and R5 M335 share the same process node (28 nm, TSMC) and the same 2 GB memory capacity, but nearly every other specification favors the NVIDIA part. The transistor count difference is stark, with the GTX 765M using over 3.6 times as many transistors, and the die size is nearly four times larger. The R5 M335 compensates with a slightly higher transistor density, but that does not offset the massive gap in core count and memory bandwidth. The GTX 765M also has a recorded TDP of 75 W, which is higher than the unspecified TDP of the R5 M335, reflecting its more power-hungry design. The bus interface differs as well, with the GTX 765M using MXM-B (3.0) and the R5 M335 using PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP recorded in the database. The GTX 765M released on May 29, 2013, and the R5 M335 on October 20, 2015. Each has a distinct predecessor and successor lineage, but the performance story remains consistent across every recorded benchmark: the GTX 765M is decisively faster.