AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only two direct comparison points, and both belong decisively to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5152, while the GTX 970M reaches 18946. That is a delta of -72.8% from the AMD part, meaning the NVIDIA solution delivers roughly 3.7 times the compute throughput in this workload. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: the R5 M430 posts 4884, the GTX 970M posts 18292, a -73.3% gap. The GTX 970M wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 sweep.

The magnitude of these deltas is worth pausing on. A 73% deficit in both API tests is not a marginal difference; it is a generational chasm disguised as a mobile GPU comparison. The R5 M430, with its 320 shading units and 547.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, is simply outclassed by the GTX 970M's 1280 shading units and 2.657 TFLOPS. The raw numbers align with the benchmark scores, but the benchmark results are the more direct evidence of real-world behavior.

Looking at the broader database context, the R5 M430 sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 970M sits at the 27th percentile. This is counterintuitive at first glance, since the GTX 970M is clearly the faster card in direct comparison. The explanation lies in how percentiles are computed across the full GPU landscape. The R5 M430's average benchmark score is 5018, while the GTX 970M's average is 4628, but the GTX 970M has a much wider spread of test results, including several low-scoring DirectX 10, 11, and 12 Passmark entries (28, 42, and 24 respectively). Those low scores drag its average down, even though its peak performance in Geekbench is far higher. The percentile ranking reflects the average, not the ceiling.

The nearest rivals for each card further illustrate the gap. The R5 M430's closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W4170M, which averages 5034, a delta of -0.3%. The GTX 970M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, which averages 4621, a delta of 0.2%. Both cards are essentially tied with their closest peers, but the absolute level of those peers is different by an order of magnitude. The R5 M430 is competing in a pool where 5000 is the norm; the GTX 970M is competing in a pool where 4600 is the norm, despite its ability to hit 18946 in OpenCL. The data suggests the GTX 970M's average is dragged down by tests that stress legacy DirectX paths, while its modern compute performance is exceptional.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 does not win any head-to-head benchmark in the database. Its two recorded tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, both result in losses to the GTX 970M. However, the R5 M430 does have a niche: its average benchmark score of 5018 is higher than the GTX 970M's average of 4628. This is a statistical artifact, not a performance advantage. The R5 M430's scores are tightly clustered (5152 and 4884), while the GTX 970M's scores range from 24 to 18946. If a workload resembles the Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan tests, the GTX 970M is overwhelmingly faster. If a workload resembles Passmark DirectX 9 or G2D tests, the GTX 970M still wins (99 and 381 respectively), but the margin is smaller.

The GTX 970M wins in every category that matters for modern gaming and compute. Its Passmark G3D score of 5704 is a strong indicator of general 3D performance, and its Passmark GPU Compute score of 2289 shows it can handle non-graphics workloads. The R5 M430 has no equivalent scores in the database, so its 3D performance outside of Geekbench cannot be directly assessed from the recorded data. What the data does show is that the R5 M430 is a low-power integrated-class part (slot width: IGP) with a 64-bit memory bus and DDR3 memory, while the GTX 970M is a discrete MXM module with a 192-bit GDDR5 interface. Those architectural facts, combined with the benchmark deltas, point to a clear division: the R5 M430 is suited for basic display output and light 2D tasks, while the GTX 970M is built for demanding 3D rendering and compute.

The use-case split is therefore not about which card wins which test, but about what each card is designed to do. The R5 M430, with its 16.00 GB/s bandwidth and 8 ROPs, is a companion GPU for laptops where the primary workload is office productivity or media playback. The GTX 970M, with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth and 48 ROPs, is a gaming and content-creation part. The data does not support any scenario where the R5 M430 outperforms the GTX 970M in a compute or graphics workload, but it does support the conclusion that the R5 M430 is adequate for tasks that do not require the GTX 970M's resources.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 18946, while the AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5152. The GTX 970M leads by 72.8%.

Q: Are the two GPUs close in overall average benchmark performance?

A: No. The R5 M430 averages 5018 across its two tests, while the GTX 970M averages 4628 across ten tests. The GTX 970M's average is lower due to several low DirectX Passmark scores, despite its much higher peak performance.

Q: What is the GTX 970M's best recorded benchmark result?

A: Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18946 is the highest in its record. Its Vulkan score of 18292 is close behind.

Q: Does the R5 M430 win any direct comparison?

A: No. The database shows 0 wins for the R5 M430 and 2 wins for the GTX 970M in head-to-head tests.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The R5 M430 is 0.3% behind the AMD FirePro W4170M and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics. The GTX 970M is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M230.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 970M scores 18292 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 4884 for the R5 M430, a 73.3% advantage for NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The R5 M430 uses 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the GTX 970M uses 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. Transistor density is similar, 12.3M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm², but the total scale is vastly different. Clock speeds also differ: the R5 M430 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost, while the GTX 970M runs at 924 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. Memory speed is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the AMD part and 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA part.

Memory configuration is a major separator. The R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 120.3 GB/s, roughly 7.5 times the bandwidth. The compute resources follow the same pattern: 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the R5 M430, versus 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs for the GTX 970M. Pixel rate is 6.840 GPixel/s versus 49.82 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s versus 83.04 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 547.2 GFLOPS versus 2.657 TFLOPS, a 4.9x advantage for NVIDIA.

The form factor and interface also differ. The R5 M430 is an IGP with PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 970M is an MXM Module with MXM-B (3.0) and no power connectors. The R5 M430 has no recorded power connectors, TDP, or suggested PSU, while the GTX 970M lists no power connectors either, but its MXM form factor implies a different thermal and power delivery context. Both are end-of-life products, but the GTX 970M has a release date of October 6, 2014, while the R5 M430 has no recorded release date. The R5 M430's predecessor is "Solar System" and successor is "Polaris Mobile", while the GTX 970M's predecessor is "GeForce 800M" and successor is "GeForce 10 Mobile".

Architecture Differences

The R5 M430 is built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture using the Jet chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 970M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both use the same foundry and node, but the architectures are fundamentally different. GCN 1.0 is AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next design, which emphasizes compute shaders and asynchronous dispatch. Maxwell 2.0 is NVIDIA's second-generation Maxwell, which focuses on power efficiency per shader and improved geometry throughput.

The R5 M430 belongs to the "Gem System (R5 M400)" generation, while the GTX 970M belongs to the "GeForce 900M" generation. The predecessor and successor names reflect different product lineages: the R5 M430 comes after "Solar System" and before "Polaris Mobile", while the GTX 970M comes after "GeForce 800M" and before "GeForce 10 Mobile". The API support also differs: the R5 M430 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_1) and newer Vulkan version on the GTX 970M indicate better support for modern rendering features.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies. The R5 M430 has no recorded codename, and neither does the GTX 970M. The display outputs for both are listed as "Portable Device Dependent", meaning the laptop manufacturer determines the physical connectors. The R5 M430's process node, foundry, and transistor density are close to the GTX 970M's, but the architectural efficiency differs. Maxwell 2.0 achieves higher performance per shader and per clock than GCN 1.0, which explains why the GTX 970M's 1280 shading units produce 2.657 TFLOPS while the R5 M430's 320 shading units produce only 547.2 GFLOPS, a ratio that exceeds the pure shader count ratio.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the superior GPU in every direct benchmark comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 18946 versus 5152 for the AMD Radeon R5 M430, a 72.8% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 18292 versus 4884, a 73.3% lead. The GTX 970M wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record. The R5 M430 has zero wins. For anyone choosing between these two for a laptop, the GTX 970M is the only option for 3D gaming, GPU compute, or any workload that stresses modern APIs.

However, the R5 M430 is not without a use case. Its average benchmark score of 5018 is higher than the GTX 970M's 4628, due to the latter's low DirectX Passmark scores. If the workload is limited to legacy DirectX 9 or 2D tasks, the GTX 970M still wins (99 versus no R5 M430 score, and 381 in G2D), but the margin is smaller. The R5 M430's IGP form factor and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth suggest it is designed for basic display output in thin laptops, not for performance. The GTX 970M's MXM form factor, 120.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 2.657 TFLOPS make it a discrete gaming part.

The percentile data adds nuance. The R5 M430 ranks at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 970M ranks at the 27th. This is because the GTX 970M's average is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX 10, 11, and 12 scores (28, 42, and 24), which are anomalously low for a GPU with its compute power. The R5 M430 has only two benchmark scores, both in Geekbench, so its average is more stable. This does not change the verdict: the GTX 970M is the better GPU for any performance-sensitive task. The R5 M430 is a placeholder for laptops that need a GPU on paper but not in practice.

The verdict is therefore split by intent. If the laptop must play modern games, run CUDA-style compute (though the GTX 970M does not have CUDA scores in the database, its OpenCL performance is indicative), or handle any graphics workload beyond 2D, the GTX 970M is the clear choice. If the laptop is for office work, web browsing, and video playback, the R5 M430 is sufficient, and its lower resource footprint (IGP, 56 mm² die, 690 million transistors) is better suited to battery life and portability. The database does not support any scenario where the R5 M430 outperforms the GTX 970M in a meaningful way. The GTX 970M is the winner, and the R5 M430 is a legacy part that should be avoided for any performance requirement.