AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs NVIDIA GeForce 930M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX and the NVIDIA GeForce 930M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 2014 to 2015 era, aimed at thin and portable laptops. They share a 28 nm manufacturing process from TSMC and an IGP slot width, but their underlying designs and benchmark results diverge sharply. The database records a single head-to-head comparison in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX posts a score of 4867 against 3729 for the NVIDIA GeForce 930M, a difference of 30.5% in favor of the AMD part. However, the NVIDIA chip has its own recorded OpenCL score of 5046, which is not directly comparable to the Vulkan results but provides a separate data point for its compute capability. This analysis walks through the recorded measurements, architectural differences, and what each component offers based strictly on the database entries.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is the Geekbench Vulkan test. In this test, the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX achieves 4867 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 3729 points. The delta is 30.5%, a substantial margin that places the AMD part clearly ahead in this specific workload. This is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive lead that suggests the AMD architecture handles Vulkan operations with significantly greater efficiency in this pairing.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX also holds a higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests. Its average is 4867, which equals its single Vulkan score since that is the only benchmark listed for it. The NVIDIA GeForce 930M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 4388, derived from two recorded tests: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3729 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5046. While the NVIDIA part's OpenCL score of 5046 is higher than the AMD Vulkan score of 4867, these are different APIs and cannot be treated as a direct comparison. Within the same API, Vulkan, the AMD part wins outright.

The percentile rankings reinforce this gap. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX sits in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M sits in the 26th percentile. Although both are low in the overall distribution, the AMD part ranks slightly higher, consistent with its higher Vulkan score and higher average benchmark score. The nearest rivals for the AMD part include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M at an average score of 4855 (0.2% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4844 (0.5% behind), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 sits at 4893 (0.5% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901 (0.7% ahead). These data points show that the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX performs in a tight cluster with those older and newer parts, none of which are more than 0.7% away from its score.

For the NVIDIA GeForce 930M, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M at an average score of 4411 (0.5% ahead), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 at 4360 (0.7% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335 (1.2% behind), and the AMD FirePro W2100 at 4295 (2.2% behind). This places the 930M in a slightly lower performance band than the AMD part, with its closest competitor being the GT 645M, which edges it out by half a percent. The data shows a clear stratification: the AMD part competes with parts scoring near 4850 to 4900, while the NVIDIA part competes with parts scoring near 4300 to 4400.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench Vulkan test, with 4867 against 3729. This is its sole recorded win, and it is decisive. For users or workloads that rely on Vulkan, whether that is gaming, rendering, or compute tasks using that API, the AMD part is the stronger choice according to the recorded data.

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it does have a recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 5046. This score is higher than the AMD part's Vulkan score, but since the AMD part has no OpenCL score in the database, no direct comparison can be made. Still, the OpenCL result indicates that the NVIDIA part has a compute capability that is measured at a level above the AMD part's Vulkan measurement. This is not a head-to-head win, but it is a data point that suggests the NVIDIA architecture has strength in OpenCL workloads, at least in absolute terms.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the AMD part leads with 4867 versus 4388 for the NVIDIA part. This is a difference of 479 points, or roughly 10.9% higher for the AMD part. The wins tally in the database shows 1 win for the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX and 0 wins for the NVIDIA GeForce 930M. The NVIDIA part's higher OpenCL score does not translate into a win because the head-to-head comparison is only defined for the Vulkan test. In practical terms, the AMD part is the one that wins the recorded comparison, while the NVIDIA part offers a higher raw score in a different API that the database does not cross-compare.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different manufacturers and different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses the Jet chip built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, with a generation designation of "Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200)". The NVIDIA GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip built on the Maxwell architecture, with a generation designation of "GeForce 900M". Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but their transistor counts and die sizes differ markedly. The AMD chip contains 690 million transistors on a die size of 56 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip contains 1,020 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is therefore both physically larger and denser, with roughly 47.8% more transistors.

The memory configurations are fundamentally different. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses system shared memory for size, type, bus width, and bandwidth, and the bandwidth is listed as system dependent. This means it relies on the laptop's main RAM, and its performance scales with the system's memory configuration. The NVIDIA GeForce 930M has dedicated memory: 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 12.80 GB/s. The memory clock is 800 MHz with 1600 Mbps effective. This dedicated allocation gives the NVIDIA part a fixed memory subsystem, whereas the AMD part is variable and dependent on the host system.

The compute units also differ. The AMD part has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has more shading units and more TMUs, but the same number of ROPs. The pixel rate for the AMD part is 6.840 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA part is 4.392 GPixel/s. The texture rate for the AMD part is 17.10 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA part is 13.18 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute for the AMD part is 547.2 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part is 421.6 GFLOPS. In every throughput metric recorded, the AMD part is higher, despite having fewer shading units. This is likely due to the higher clock speeds: the AMD base clock is 780 MHz with a boost of 855 MHz, while the NVIDIA base and boost clocks are both fixed at 549 MHz. The AMD part runs at a significantly higher frequency, which compensates for its lower unit count.

The bus interface differs as well. The AMD part uses an IGP bus interface, meaning it is integrated into the system and shares the system's memory and bus. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, a dedicated external interface that allows it to communicate with the CPU over a standard PCIe link. This is a notable structural difference, as the NVIDIA part is not a true integrated GPU but a discrete one in a small form factor, even though its slot width is listed as IGP. The power characteristics also differ: the NVIDIA part has a TDP of 33 W and no power connectors, while the AMD part has no TDP listed. The NVIDIA part's power draw is therefore a known quantity, whereas the AMD part's is not recorded.

The API support shows subtle differences. Both support DirectX 12, but the AMD part is listed as DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA part is DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. For Vulkan, the AMD part supports version 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA part supports version 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version, but the benchmark shows it performing worse in the Vulkan test. The production status for both is end-of-life. The AMD part was released on January 6, 2014, and the NVIDIA part on March 12, 2015. The NVIDIA part has a named predecessor, the GeForce 800M, and a successor, the GeForce 10 Mobile, while the AMD part has no predecessor or successor listed.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is the stronger performer in the head-to-head comparison. It wins the only directly comparable benchmark, the Geekbench Vulkan test, by 30.5%. Its average benchmark score of 4867 is higher than the NVIDIA part's 4388, and its percentile ranking of 28th is higher than the NVIDIA part's 26th. In throughput metrics, the AMD part leads in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute. Its higher clock speeds, boost up to 855 MHz versus a fixed 549 MHz, drive these advantages.

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M is not without merit. It has a larger transistor count, a denser die, and dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus. Its OpenCL score of 5046 is the highest single score recorded for either part, though it is not directly comparable to the AMD Vulkan score. For users who prioritize OpenCL compute workloads, the NVIDIA part has a recorded data point that suggests capability, but the database does not provide a direct comparison to confirm it beats the AMD part in that API.

The verdict is clear: for Vulkan-based workloads and for the overall average benchmark score, the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is the better choice. For users who need dedicated memory and a known TDP of 33 W, the NVIDIA GeForce 930M offers a more predictable memory subsystem and a documented power envelope. The AMD part relies on system shared memory, so its bandwidth is system dependent, which could be a drawback in memory-intensive scenarios. However, the recorded benchmarks favor the AMD part in every head-to-head metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 4867 against 3729 for the NVIDIA GeForce 930M, a 30.5% difference.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 930M have any benchmark advantage?

A: The NVIDIA part has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5046, which is higher than the AMD part's Vulkan score, but the AMD part has no OpenCL score recorded, so no direct comparison exists.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has an average benchmark score of 4867, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M has an average of 4388.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD part has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz, while the NVIDIA part has a fixed clock of 549 MHz for both base and boost.

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 12.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count for each chip?

A: The AMD Jet chip has 690 million transistors, while the NVIDIA GM108S chip has 1,020 million transistors.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX and the NVIDIA GeForce 930M:

• Manufacturer: AMD versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Jet versus GM108S
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus Maxwell
• Generation: Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200) versus GeForce 900M
• Transistors: 690 million versus 1,020 million
• Die size: 56 mm² versus 77 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.3M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm²
• Base clock: 780 MHz versus 549 MHz
• Boost clock: 855 MHz versus 549 MHz
• Memory clock: System Shared versus 800 MHz, 1600 Mbps effective
• Memory size: System Shared versus 2 GB
• Memory type: System Shared versus DDR3
• Memory bus width: System Shared versus 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: System Dependent versus 12.80 GB/s
• Shading units: 320 versus 384
• TMUs: 20 versus 24
• Pixel rate: 6.840 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 17.10 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s
• FP32: 547.2 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS
• TDP: not listed versus 33 W
• Power connectors: not listed versus None
• Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• DirectX support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.170 versus 1.4
• Release date: 2014-01-06 versus 2015-03-12
• Predecessor: not listed versus GeForce 800M
• Successor: not listed versus GeForce 10 Mobile
• Geekbench Vulkan score: 4867 versus 3729
• Average benchmark score: 4867 versus 4388
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 28 versus 26