AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and AMD Radeon R5 M430 occupy opposite ends of the mobile graphics spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive performance gap. In the two shared head-to-head tests, the GTX 980M records a 362.6% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL (23,832 vs. 5,152) and a 262.5% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan (17,703 vs. 4,884). These are not marginal wins; the NVIDIA part delivers over 4.6 times the OpenCL throughput and over 3.6 times the Vulkan score of the AMD part. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story, with the GTX 980M posting 5,308 against the R5 M430's 5,018 — a difference of just 5.8%, but that narrow gap is misleading, as the GTX 980M's average is pulled down by its older DirectX 9 and 10 results, while the AMD part only has two compute-focused benchmarks in its profile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks where both GPUs have recorded scores are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the GTX 980M wins both outright. In OpenCL, the NVIDIA part scores 23,832 versus 5,152 for the Radeon R5 M430, a delta of 362.6%. That means the GTX 980M is roughly 4.6 times faster in raw compute throughput — a figure consistent with its much larger silicon and memory subsystem. In Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly but remains overwhelming: 17,703 versus 4,884, a 262.5% delta. The GTX 980M is 3.6 times faster in this API-level test, which exercises draw calls and driver overhead more than raw shader math.

Looking at the wider benchmark suite for the GTX 980M, its Passmark G3D score is 7,338, with DirectX 11 scoring 57, DirectX 12 scoring 31, and DirectX 9 scoring 125. The DirectX 9 result is notably the strongest of its API-specific scores, which is common for older Maxwell parts. Its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,816, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 649. The R5 M430 has no corresponding Passmark or 3DMark scores in the data, so direct comparisons are limited to the two Geekbench tests. However, the R5 M430's nearest rivals offer context: it sits within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5,063) and 0.8% of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (4,979), while trailing the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4,998) by 0.4%. The GTX 980M, by contrast, trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5,317, delta -0.2%) and 840M (5,322, delta -0.3%), and leads the GeForce 940M (5,284) by 0.5%.

The percentile rankings are closer than the raw scores suggest: the GTX 980M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M430 is at the 30th. This is because the percentile includes every GPU ever benchmarked, and both are older mobile parts that have been superseded. But within their own peer groups, the GTX 980M is clearly the stronger performer — its average score of 5,308 is 5.8% above the R5 M430's 5,018, and its wins in both head-to-head tests are by margins of 262.5% or more.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is as wide as the performance gap. The GTX 980M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The R5 M430 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die — a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The GTX 980M has 7.5 times more transistors and a die that is 7.1 times larger.

The compute resources differ proportionally. The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The R5 M430 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. That is 4.8 times more shaders, 4.8 times more TMUs, and 8 times more ROPs on the NVIDIA side. Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA: the GTX 980M runs at 1,038 MHz base and 1,127 MHz boost, while the R5 M430 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. The resulting fill rates are not close — the GTX 980M achieves 72.13 GPixel/s and 108.2 GTexel/s, versus 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s for the AMD part. FP32 throughput is 3.462 TFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS — a 6.3 times difference.

Memory is another major divider. The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth at 5 Gbps effective. The R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering just 16.00 GB/s at 2 Gbps effective. That is a 10-fold difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily impacts texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions. The GTX 980M also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M430 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 980M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is a removable MXM module, while the R5 M430 is an integrated GPU (IGP) wired to PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are end-of-life products, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M scores 23,832 versus 5,152 for the AMD Radeon R5 M430, a delta of 362.6% in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Is the R5 M430 competitive in Vulkan performance?

A: No. The GTX 980M scores 17,703 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4,884 for the R5 M430, which is a 262.5% advantage for NVIDIA. The AMD part is roughly 27.6% as fast as the NVIDIA part in this test.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 980M has an average benchmark score of 5,308, while the R5 M430 averages 5,018. That is a 5.8% difference overall, but the gap in compute-heavy tests is far larger because the GTX 980M's average includes older API tests where it scores lower.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The GTX 980M's closest competitors are the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5,317, -0.2%), GeForce 840M (5,322, -0.3%), GeForce 940M (5,284, +0.5%), and AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5,358, -0.9%). The R5 M430's nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W4170M (5,034, -0.3%), AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4,998, +0.4%), NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (4,979, +0.8%), and AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5,063, -0.9%).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, while the R5 M430 has 320. That is a 4.8 times difference in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R5 M430 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the GTX 980M supports Vulkan 1.4, and the R5 M430 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the superior GPU for any workload that stresses compute, memory bandwidth, or modern API performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 262.5% and 362.6%, offers 6.3 times the FP32 throughput, and has 10 times the memory bandwidth of the AMD Radeon R5 M430. The R5 M430 is not a competitor in the same class; it is an entry-level integrated part with 320 shading units, 8 ROPs, and DDR3 memory, while the GTX 980M is a high-end discrete MXM module with 1,536 shaders, 64 ROPs, and GDDR5.

For a user who needs playable frame rates in modern titles or any GPU-accelerated compute work, the GTX 980M is the only rational choice from these two. Its percentile rank of 31 versus 30 for the R5 M430 understates the gap because percentiles include all GPUs ever tested, but the direct comparison scores and architectural specifications tell a consistent story. The R5 M430's nearest rivals are other low-end parts like the Radeon R7 Graphics and Quadro 4000, while the GTX 980M trades with mid-range mobile parts like the GeForce 940M and 840M — a full class above. If the workload is limited to basic 2D tasks or light compute, the R5 M430 suffices, but it offers no advantage over the GTX 980M in any measured metric. The GTX 980M is the pick for performance; the R5 M430 is only relevant where power draw or integration constraints force a choice — though no TDP data is available to confirm that tradeoff.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M | AMD Radeon R5 M430 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GM204 | Jet |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1038 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1127 MHz | 855 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz / 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 320 |

| TMUs | 96 | 20 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 72.13 GPixel/s | 6.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 108.2 GTexel/s | 17.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.462 TFLOPS | 547.2 GFLOPS |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | — |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2014-10-06 | — |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | Polaris Mobile |