AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the recorded head-to-head results, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins both benchmark tests outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 765M scores 7,176 against the Radeon R5 M430’s 5,152, a delta of 39.3% in NVIDIA’s favor. That is a substantial margin, one that places the GTX 765M in a clearly higher performance tier for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

The Vulkan test shows a similar pattern. The GTX 765M records 6,714 while the R5 M430 trails at 4,884, a 37.5% difference. Both deltas exceed a third of the AMD part’s score, which indicates that the NVIDIA chip does not merely edge ahead; it consistently outpaces the Radeon across API boundaries. The wins tally is 2 for the GTX 765M and 0 for the R5 M430, leaving no ambiguity about the head-to-head outcome.

Looking at the broader database context, the GTX 765M’s average benchmark score is 5,501, which places it at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 5,508 (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5,483 (0.3% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 5,467 (0.6% lower), and the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5,537 (0.7% higher). This means the GTX 765M sits in a very narrow band of performance, within 0.7% of four other mobile or workstation parts, all of which are essentially tied. The 39.3% lead over the R5 M430 is therefore not a reflection of the GTX 765M being an outlier; rather, it shows how far below that cluster the R5 M430 falls.

For the R5 M430, the average benchmark score is 5,018, at the 30th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5,034 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4,998 (0.4% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 at 4,979 (0.8% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5,063 (0.9% higher). Like the GTX 765M, the R5 M430 is surrounded by closely matched parts, but its entire cluster sits roughly 10% lower in absolute score terms. The delta between the two chips’ average scores is 483 points, or about 9.6% relative to the R5 M430. That gap is consistent with the head-to-head results, reinforcing that the GTX 765M is the stronger part across the board.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages, which explains much of the performance gap. The GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip, built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die measures 221 mm² and contains 2,540 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The R5 M430, in contrast, uses the Jet chip, based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node. Its die is just 56 mm² with 690 million transistors, for a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is nearly four times larger in die area and has over 3.6 times the transistor count, which gives it a fundamental resource advantage.

The compute resources reflect that disparity. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The R5 M430 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. In every category, the NVIDIA part has more than double the AMD part’s count. The pixel rate for the GTX 765M is 13.81 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s for the R5 M430, and the texture rate is 55.23 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 1,325.6 GFLOPS for the GTX 765M and 547.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M430. These are not marginal differences; the GTX 765M delivers roughly 2.4 times the FP32 compute and 3.2 times the texturing throughput.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s. The R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s. That is a 4x difference in bandwidth, which heavily favors the NVIDIA chip in memory-intensive workloads. The R5 M430’s larger capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB) may help in scenarios where capacity matters more than speed, but the raw throughput gap is severe. The memory clocks also differ: the GTX 765M runs at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the R5 M430 runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective.

The GTX 765M is a discrete MXM module with no power connectors, rated at 75 W, and uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The R5 M430 is an integrated GPU (IGP) on a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, with no listed TDP. Both are marked as end-of-life. API support shows minor differences: the GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R5 M430 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, but this does not translate into better benchmark results.

# Where Each One Wins

The GTX 765M wins in every benchmark category recorded. For OpenCL compute, it leads by 39.3%, which suggests that applications using GPU acceleration for general-purpose tasks will see a clear benefit on the NVIDIA part. For Vulkan graphics and compute, the lead is 37.5%, meaning game workloads or Vulkan-based rendering will also favor the GTX 765M. Given the 2.4x FP32 throughput advantage and the 4x memory bandwidth advantage, this outcome is unsurprising. The GTX 765M is also ahead in pixel rate (13.81 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s) and texture rate (55.23 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s), so any workload that stresses fill rates will lean NVIDIA.

The R5 M430 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its only area of numerical superiority is memory capacity: 4 GB versus 2 GB. In scenarios where the application requires more than 2 GB of video memory, the R5 M430 could theoretically hold larger datasets, but the 16.00 GB/s bandwidth is a severe constraint. The R5 M430’s lower power profile, as an IGP with no listed TDP, might make it more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where discrete graphics are not an option, but that is a system-level consideration rather than a performance one. The GTX 765M, with its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor, is clearly designed for larger notebooks that can accommodate a discrete module.

In practical terms, the GTX 765M is the choice for anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, including modern games, GPU-accelerated video encoding, or scientific compute. The R5 M430 is positioned as a basic integrated solution, adequate for light 2D work or older titles, but it cannot match the NVIDIA part in any measured benchmark.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M has an average benchmark score of 5,501, while the AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5,018. The GTX 765M is 483 points higher, roughly 9.6% above the R5 M430.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the GTX 765M scores 6,714 versus the R5 M430’s 4,884, a delta of 37.5% in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Does the R5 M430 have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory, while the GTX 765M has 2 GB of GDDR5. However, the GTX 765M’s bandwidth is 64.13 GB/s, four times higher than the R5 M430’s 16.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each GPU?

A: The GTX 765M sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA MX130, AMD R7 M440, NVIDIA Quadro M4000, and AMD FirePro M4000. The R5 M430 sits within 0.9% of the AMD FirePro W4170M, AMD R7 Graphics, NVIDIA Quadro 4000, and AMD R7 M340.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, while the R5 M430 has 320 shading units.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

# Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data:

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M | AMD Radeon R5 M430 |

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

| Chip | GK106 | Jet |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 700M | Gem System (R5 M400) |

| 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 | 797 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 863 MHz | 855 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 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 | 13.81 GPixel/s | 6.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 55.23 GTexel/s | 17.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,325.6 GFLOPS | 547.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | null |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| 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 | null |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 800M | Polaris Mobile |

The two GPUs share the same process node, foundry, OpenGL version, display outputs, production status, and lack of RT or tensor cores. The R5 M430 has a slightly higher transistor density despite its much smaller die, but the GTX 765M’s overwhelming transistor budget and memory subsystem dominate the comparison.

# The Verdict

The data points to a decisive conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the superior GPU in every measured benchmark. Its 39.3% OpenCL lead and 37.5% Vulkan lead over the R5 M430 are backed by hardware specifications that show a 2.4x advantage in FP32 throughput, a 4x advantage in memory bandwidth, and more than double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. The GTX 765M also sits in a tighter competitive cluster, within 0.7% of its four nearest rivals, whereas the R5 M430’s cluster is lower in absolute terms, around the 30th percentile of all GPUs. The R5 M430’s only advantage is memory capacity, which does not compensate for its severe bandwidth deficit.

Users who need a discrete mobile GPU for OpenCL compute, Vulkan rendering, or any workload that stresses fill rates should choose the GTX 765M. The R5 M430 is an integrated solution with no listed TDP, suitable only for systems where a discrete module is not feasible and where the workload is light enough to tolerate 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. There is no benchmark scenario in the recorded data where the R5 M430 wins. The GTX 765M is the clear choice from a performance standpoint, and the fact that both are end-of-life means the decision should be based on the specifications and benchmark results above, not on future support.