AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M are two mobile graphics processors from different eras and performance tiers, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive gap between them. While the R5 M335 is a modest entry-level part from AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, the GTX 970M is a high-end mobile GPU built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 design, and the numbers show the latter dominating in every head-to-head comparison available.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is stark and one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 18,946, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 manages only 4,745. This represents a delta of -75% for the AMD part, meaning the GTX 970M is roughly four times faster in raw compute performance. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story: the GTX 970M posts 18,292 versus the R5 M335’s 4,758, again a -74% delta. These are not incremental differences; they are generational and architectural chasms.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the GTX 970M has results across multiple tests, including PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12, PassMark G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, while the R5 M335 only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores. The GTX 970M’s PassMark G3D score of 5,704 and GPU compute score of 2,289 further illustrate its capability, whereas the R5 M335 has no comparable data in those tests. Even in the GTX 970M’s weakest relative showing, PassMark DirectX 12 at 24, it still outperforms the R5 M335 in every metric where both have data.

The wins tally confirms this: NVIDIA wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, with AMD failing to claim a single victory. The average benchmark scores also reflect the gap, though interestingly, the R5 M335’s average of 4,752 is slightly higher than the GTX 970M’s 4,628. This is an artifact of the different test sets—the R5 M335’s average is based solely on its two Geekbench scores, while the GTX 970M’s average includes lower-scoring PassMark tests. It does not indicate real-world competitiveness.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the verdict is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the superior GPU by a massive margin. In every directly comparable benchmark, it leads by at least 74%. The R5 M335, with its 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, simply cannot compete with the GTX 970M’s 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 970M also has a 6 GB GDDR5 memory pool on a 192-bit bus, delivering 120.3 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the R5 M335’s 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus at 14.40 GB/s.

For any user whose priority is gaming, content creation, or GPU-accelerated compute, the GTX 970M is the only rational choice. The R5 M335 might be acceptable for basic display output or light 2D workloads, but the benchmark results show it is not in the same league. The percentile rankings are close—28th for the R5 M335 and 27th for the GTX 970M—but this is misleading due to the different test sets and the fact that the GTX 970M’s percentile is dragged down by its inclusion of multiple PassMark tests where it scores lower. The actual compute and graphics performance data tells a far clearer story.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparisons, so its “wins” are limited to areas not captured by performance tests. It is a smaller chip at 56 mm² with 690 million transistors, compared to the GTX 970M’s 398 mm² die with 5,200 million transistors. This means the R5 M335 likely draws less power and generates less heat, though the fact pack does not include TDP figures for either card. It also uses a simpler PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the GTX 970M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module form factor, which is a different physical and electrical design.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M wins in every measurable performance category. It has a higher pixel rate (49.82 GPixel/s versus 8.24 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (83.04 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (2.657 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS). Its memory subsystem is vastly superior, with more capacity, faster GDDR5 memory, and over eight times the bandwidth. In API support, the GTX 970M also leads with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M335 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

For use cases like modern gaming, 3D rendering, video editing, or any GPU compute task, the GTX 970M is the clear winner. The R5 M335, by contrast, might be suitable only for very light productivity, media playback, or as a basic display adapter in a budget laptop where performance is not a priority.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has a higher average benchmark score of 4,752, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M’s 4,628. However, this is due to different test sets; the R5 M335 only has two Geekbench scores, while the GTX 970M includes several PassMark tests that lower its average.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4,745. This gives the GTX 970M a 75% advantage.

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

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks provided, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins 0 out of 2 tests, with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M winning both.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the AMD Radeon R5 M335 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the transistor counts?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 is based on GCN 1.0, using the “Exo” chip, and belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. It is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 690 million transistors packed into a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, in contrast, uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, part of the GeForce 900M generation. It is also on a 28 nm TSMC process but is a much larger chip: 398 mm² with 5,200 million transistors, resulting in a density of 13.1M per mm².

The core configurations differ dramatically. The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This fourfold increase in shading units and TMUs, and sixfold increase in ROPs, explains the massive performance gap. Clock speeds also differ, though the R5 M335’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the fact pack; the GTX 970M runs at a 924 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. The memory architecture is also a key differentiator: the R5 M335 uses slow DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the GTX 970M uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), leading to bandwidths of 14.40 GB/s and 120.3 GB/s, respectively.

The physical form factors differ too. The R5 M335 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and has no power connectors, while the GTX 970M comes as an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and also has no power connectors. Both have display outputs described as “Portable Device Dependent.” The GTX 970M supports a newer DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_1) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170), which matters for modern games and applications.

Specification Differences

The following specification fields differ between the AMD Radeon R5 M335 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M:

• Chip: Exo (AMD) vs GM204 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: Gem System (R5 M300) vs GeForce 900M
• Transistors: 690 million vs 5,200 million
• Die Size: 56 mm² vs 398 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² vs 13.1M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not listed vs 924 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not listed vs 1038 MHz
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) vs 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 6 GB
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs 192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s vs 120.3 GB/s
• Shading Units: 320 vs 1280
• TMUs: 20 vs 80
• ROPs: 8 vs 48
• Pixel Rate: 8.240 GPixel/s vs 49.82 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.60 GTexel/s vs 83.04 GTexel/s
• FP32: 659.2 GFLOPS vs 2.657 TFLOPS
• Slot Width: Not listed vs MXM Module
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2015-10-20 vs 2014-10-06
• Predecessor: Solar System vs GeForce 800M
• Successor: Polaris Mobile vs GeForce 10 Mobile