AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs AMD Radeon R5 M430

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M and AMD Radeon R5 M430 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they target very different corners of the laptop market. The GTX 760M is a 28 nm Kepler part from NVIDIA's GeForce 700M generation, packing 768 shading units and 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The R5 M430 is AMD's GCN 1.0-based Jet chip, a much smaller 28 nm design with 320 shading units and 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. Benchmark data shows a near-tie in aggregate scores — the GTX 760M averages 5236, while the R5 M430 averages 5018 — but the two GPUs win in different scenarios, and their architectural gaps tell a clearer story than the raw numbers suggest.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760M takes the OpenCL crown decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 5604 against the R5 M430's 5152, a margin of 8.8%. This is the compute-oriented workload, and NVIDIA's larger Kepler chip with 768 shading units and 64 texture mapping units simply outmuscles AMD's 320-shader Jet design. If your work involves OpenCL-accelerated applications — think video encoding, physics simulation, or GPGPU tasks — the GTX 760M is the clear choice from the data.

The R5 M430 counters in Vulkan, though barely. It edges out the GTX 760M with a score of 4884 versus 4868, a delta of -0.3% from the NVIDIA card's perspective. That's within noise, but it's still a win for AMD in a modern graphics API. Vulkan is increasingly relevant for games and emulators, and the fact that a much smaller, lower-power chip can match the GTX 760M there suggests AMD's GCN architecture handles the API's low-level overhead efficiently. In real-world terms, the R5 M430's Vulkan advantage is negligible, but it does mean the AMD card isn't a total wash in contemporary workloads.

The split is 1-1 in terms of benchmark wins, which reflects the broader picture: the GTX 760M dominates compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, while the R5 M430 holds its own in Vulkan. For gaming specifically, neither card is a powerhouse, and the data doesn't favor one overwhelmingly in API-level performance. The GTX 760M's 8.8% OpenCL lead is the only margin large enough to call meaningful.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two is vast. The GTX 760M uses the GK106S chip on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,540 million transistors onto a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The R5 M430's Jet chip is also 28 nm from TSMC, but it's a fraction of the size: 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a slightly higher density of 12.3M per mm². That's a 3.7x difference in transistor count and a 3.9x difference in die area — the GTX 760M is a substantially more complex piece of silicon.

Memory configuration reinforces the gap. The GTX 760M runs 2 GB of GDDR5 across a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing just 16.00 GB/s — a quarter of the bandwidth. This is the single biggest practical difference. Higher bandwidth matters for texture-heavy gaming and compute workloads, while the R5 M430's larger capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB) only helps when you need to fit larger datasets in VRAM, not when you need speed.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The R5 M430 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost, while the GTX 760M is slower on paper: 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost. But the GTX 760M's massive advantage in shading units (768 vs 320), TMUs (64 vs 20), and ROPs (16 vs 8) more than compensates. Pixel rate is 11.50 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 6.840 GPixel/s for AMD, and texture rate is 46.02 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS — exactly double.

Power and interface differ too. The GTX 760M is an MXM module rated at 55 W TDP with no power connectors, while the R5 M430 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no TDP listed. The GTX 760M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, but the R5 M430 only gets PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the host interface bandwidth. Both are end-of-life, but the GTX 760M has a release date of May 29, 2013, while the R5 M430's is unlisted.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmarks show a clear split. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 760M scores 5604 against the R5 M430's 5152, winning by 8.8%. This is the largest delta in either direction and aligns perfectly with the spec sheet — the GTX 760M has more than double the shading units, double the FP32 throughput, and four times the memory bandwidth. OpenCL workloads that scale with compute units and bandwidth will consistently favor the NVIDIA card.

The Vulkan test flips, narrowly. The R5 M430 scores 4884, beating the GTX 760M's 4868 by just 0.3%. This is essentially a statistical tie, but it's noteworthy that AMD's smaller chip doesn't lose in Vulkan. Given the R5 M430's far lower bandwidth and compute, matching the GTX 760M in Vulkan suggests the GCN architecture is efficient in this API, or that the test's workload doesn't stress bandwidth heavily. Either way, the practical difference is imperceptible — a 0.3% delta is within run-to-run variance.

Looking at the nearest rivals puts these scores in context. The GTX 760M's average score of 5236 sits just 0.5% above the Quadro 4000M (5211) and 1.5% above the Radeon R7 M260X (5161), but it's 0.9% below the GeForce 940M (5284) and 1.3% below the GTX 980M (5308). The R5 M430's 5018 average is 0.3% below the FirePro W4170M (5034), 0.4% above the Radeon R7 Graphics (4998), and 0.8% above the Quadro 4000 (4979). Both cards sit in the 30th percentile of all GPUs — 31st for the GTX 760M, 30th for the R5 M430 — meaning they're both firmly in entry-level territory.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous about one thing: the GTX 760M is the stronger GPU overall. Its 8.8% OpenCL lead is the only margin that matters, and it stems from a 2.4x advantage in shading units, 3.2x in TMUs, and 4x in memory bandwidth. If you're choosing between these two for any compute-heavy task — OpenCL acceleration, video work, or anything that leverages the GPU's raw arithmetic — the GTX 760M is the only rational pick. Its 1,104.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput is double the R5 M430's 547.2 GFLOPS, and that kind of gap shows up in real workloads.

The R5 M430's case rests on two pillars: its Vulkan tie and its memory capacity. A 0.3% Vulkan win is not a reason to choose it, but the 4 GB frame buffer versus 2 GB could matter if you're running applications that exceed 2 GB of VRAM. The bandwidth penalty (16.00 GB/s vs 64.13 GB/s) means that extra capacity will be slow, but it's there. For someone who needs to load larger textures or datasets and can tolerate slower throughput, the R5 M430 has a niche.

For gaming, neither card inspires confidence. Both sit near the 30th percentile of all GPUs, and their average benchmark scores are within 4% of each other. The GTX 760M's superior bandwidth and compute make it the better bet for older titles or lighter games, but the R5 M430's Vulkan performance shows it won't be embarrassed in API-level tests. If you must pick one, the GTX 760M is the safer choice for performance; the R5 M430 only makes sense if you specifically need 4 GB of VRAM and don't care about speed. Builders should treat the GTX 760M as the functional option, and the R5 M430 as a capacity play with limited upside.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M has 1,104.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the AMD Radeon R5 M430's 547.2 GFLOPS, exactly double. This is reflected in the 8.8% OpenCL benchmark lead for the GTX 760M.

Q: Does the R5 M430's 4 GB of memory make it better for modern games?

A: The R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 760M's 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus provides 64.13 GB/s. The R5 M430 can hold more data, but it moves it four times slower, so it's not better for gaming overall.

Q: How do these cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 4884 in Geekbench Vulkan, marginally ahead of the GTX 760M's 4868, a 0.3% difference. This is within noise, but it's the R5 M430's only benchmark win.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between these two chips?

A: The GTX 760M's GK106S has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the R5 M430's Jet has 690 million on 56 mm². The NVIDIA chip is roughly 3.7x more complex in transistor count.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 760M has 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The R5 M430 has 16.00 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus — a 4x advantage for the GTX 760M.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life. The GTX 760M was released on May 29, 2013, and the R5 M430 has no listed release date, but its generation is the Gem System (R5 M400).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M | AMD Radeon R5 M430 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 56 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 628 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 719 MHz | 855 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.13 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 320 |

| TMUs | 64 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.50 GPixel/s | 6.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.02 GTexel/s | 17.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1,104.4 GFLOPS | 547.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2013-05-29 | Not listed |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |