AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes a single shared benchmark result between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX: the Geekbench Vulkan test. In this measurement, the NVIDIA part scores 6714 points, while the AMD part scores 4867 points. The delta is 37.9% in favor of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M. This is a decisive gap, placing the NVIDIA GPU firmly ahead in the Vulkan API workload that was recorded.

To contextualize this win, the database places the GeForce GTX 765M at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5501 across its recorded tests. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX sits at the 28th percentile, with an average score of 4867. The percentile difference is modest, but the Vulkan head-to-head shows a much larger performance separation than the percentiles alone would suggest. The NVIDIA part’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (average score 5508, delta of -0.1%), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (average score 5483, delta of +0.3%), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (average score 5467, delta of +0.6%), and the AMD FirePro M4000 (average score 5537, delta of -0.7%). These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning the GTX 765M sits in a very tight cluster of comparable mobile GPUs, just below the FirePro M4000 and MX130, and just above the R7 M440 and Quadro M4000.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX’s nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight competition. Its closest neighbors are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (average score 4855, delta of +0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (average score 4844, delta of +0.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (average score 4893, delta of -0.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (average score 4901, delta of -0.7%). The AMD part is effectively bracketed by these four devices, all within a percentage point of its 4867 average. The presence of the RTX 5060 Ti in that list is notable, as it indicates that the R6 M255DX’s Vulkan score is comparable to a much newer discrete GPU in this specific workload, though the database does not provide any further cross-generation context beyond the delta values.

Looking at the individual scores, the GTX 765M’s Vulkan result of 6714 is substantially higher than its own average benchmark score of 5501, suggesting that Vulkan is a particularly favorable API for this architecture. The R6 M255DX’s Vulkan score of 4867 exactly matches its average score, as it has only one recorded benchmark in the database. Therefore, the single head-to-head data point is also the entirety of the AMD part’s measured performance profile. This means the 37.9% delta is not merely a single-game anomaly; it is a direct comparison of the only recorded performance metric for the AMD GPU against a strong result for the NVIDIA GPU.

The GTX 765M also has two additional benchmark records that the R6 M255DX lacks: a Geekbench Metal score of 2612 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 7176. While these cannot be directly compared to the AMD part due to missing data, they contribute to the NVIDIA GPU’s higher average score and demonstrate that its Vulkan lead is not an isolated strong showing. The OpenCL score of 7176 is particularly high, exceeding the Vulkan score, which indicates robust compute performance under that API. The Metal score is lower, but the database does not provide rival comparisons for either of these tests, so they are presented as raw recorded values only.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the clear winner in the only head-to-head benchmark available. It leads the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX by 37.9% in Geekbench Vulkan, and its average benchmark score of 5501 is 634 points higher than the AMD part’s 4867. The percentile ranking also favors NVIDIA: 32nd versus 28th among all GPUs. For any user prioritizing raw Vulkan performance or general compute throughput as measured by OpenCL, the GTX 765M is the superior choice.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, however, has a different profile. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with system-shared memory, which the database indicates is system-dependent for bandwidth. Its only recorded benchmark is the Vulkan test, where it scores 4867, placing it in a tight competitive cluster with the GeForce GTX 560M, GeForce 940MX, GeForce GTS 450, and even the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB. In that specific context, the R6 M255DX is not far behind its nearest rivals, with deltas no larger than 0.7% in either direction. This suggests that within its own performance class, the AMD part is a solid, average performer.

Who should pick which? The data points to the GTX 765M for users who need the highest frame rates or compute throughput in Vulkan-based applications, as its 6714 score is a full 1847 points higher than the R6 M255DX. The GTX 765M’s additional OpenCL and Metal results also provide a more versatile performance profile, with the OpenCL score of 7176 being particularly strong. On the other hand, the R6 M255DX may be the appropriate choice for systems where integrated graphics are a requirement, as its IGP form factor and shared memory design are fundamentally different from the GTX 765M’s MXM module. The database does not record any scenario where the AMD part wins a benchmark, so there is no measured performance advantage to cite for it. The choice is therefore driven by the NVIDIA part’s demonstrable lead in every recorded metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectures and manufacturing generations, which explains much of their performance gap. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK106 chip, and is part of the GeForce 700M series. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, with the Jet chip, and belongs to the Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200) generation. Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but their chip designs diverge significantly.

The GTX 765M packs 2,540 million transistors on a die size of 221 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the R6 M255DX has 690 million transistors on a much smaller 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is roughly 3.7 times larger in transistor count and nearly 4 times larger in die area, which directly translates into more computational resources. The GTX 765M features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The AMD part has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These are substantial differences: the NVIDIA GPU has 448 more shading units, 44 more TMUs, and double the ROP count.

Clock speeds are similar, with the GTX 765M running at 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost, while the R6 M255DX runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part has a slight edge of 17 MHz at base and 8 MHz at boost, but the real difference comes from the sheer number of shaders and texture units. This is reflected in the pixel and texture rates. The GTX 765M achieves 13.81 GPixel/s and 55.23 GTexel/s, while the R6 M255DX manages 6.84 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA GPU’s pixel rate is more than double, and its texture rate is more than triple that of the AMD part. The FP32 compute throughput tells the same story: 1,325.6 GFLOPS for the GTX 765M versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the R6 M255DX.

Memory is another major divide. The GTX 765M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s and an effective clock of 4 Gbps. The R6 M255DX uses system-shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system-dependent. This means the AMD part’s memory performance is not fixed; it depends entirely on the host system’s RAM configuration. In practice, dedicated GDDR5 with 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth provides a far more predictable and typically higher-performance memory subsystem than shared system memory.

Power and form factor also differ. The GTX 765M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, meaning it is a removable module designed for laptops with MXM slots. It has no dedicated power connectors listed, and its display outputs are portable device dependent. The R6 M255DX has no recorded TDP, uses an IGP form factor, and connects via the IGP bus interface. It is an integrated solution, which means it shares power and thermal resources with the host CPU. The database does not list a power connector for the AMD part, consistent with its integrated nature.

API support differs slightly. The GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R6 M255DX supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0), but the NVIDIA part has a slightly newer Vulkan version. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The production status for both is end-of-life, and the release dates are May 29, 2013 for the GTX 765M and January 6, 2014 for the R6 M255DX.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 6714 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867, giving the NVIDIA part a 37.9% lead.

Q: How does the GTX 765M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The GTX 765M has an average score of 5501, which is 0.1% below the GeForce MX130, 0.3% above the Radeon R7 M440, 0.6% above the Quadro M4000, and 0.7% below the FirePro M4000.

Q: What is the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX’s closest competitor?

A: Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, with a delta of -0.5%, followed by the GeForce GTX 560M at +0.2%, the GeForce 940MX at +0.5%, and the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at -0.7%.

Q: Does the R6 M255DX have any benchmark where it beats the GTX 765M?

A: No, the database records only one shared benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, and the GTX 765M wins that test. The AMD part has no recorded wins in any head-to-head comparison.

Q: Why is the GTX 765M’s average score so much higher despite similar clocks?

A: The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, compared to 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the R6 M255DX, leading to higher pixel and texture rates.

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: The GTX 765M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the R6 M255DX uses system-shared memory with system-dependent size and bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 6714 is 37.9% higher than the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX’s 4867. In compute workloads measured by OpenCL, the GTX 765M achieves 7176 points, and in Metal it scores 2612, though the AMD part has no corresponding results for those tests. The GTX 765M’s dedicated memory subsystem, with 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth, is a clear advantage for any workload that is memory-bandwidth sensitive, such as high-resolution textures or data-heavy compute tasks. Its pixel rate of 13.81 GPixel/s and texture rate of 55.23 GTexel/s are more than double and triple, respectively, the AMD part’s rates, making it the stronger choice for rasterization-heavy rendering.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX’s wins are more contextual than absolute. As an IGP with no recorded TDP, it is designed for integrated systems where a discrete MXM module like the GTX 765M cannot be used. Its system-shared memory means it can flexibly use whatever RAM is available in the host system, which could be an advantage in systems with ample fast memory, but the database does not provide numbers to quantify that. In terms of raw benchmark performance, the R6 M255DX does not win any recorded test, but it does sit at a competitive level with its nearest rivals: it is 0.2% above the GTX 560M, 0.5% above the 940MX, 0.5% below the GTS 450, and 0.7% below the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB. This indicates that within its performance class, the AMD part is a solid mid-tier performer, just not in the same league as the GTX 765M.

For users who prioritize the highest possible frame rates in Vulkan applications, the GTX 765M is the clear choice. For users who require an integrated graphics solution with no discrete GPU slot, the R6 M255DX is the only option that fits the form factor, and its performance is respectable relative to its direct peers. The data does not support choosing the AMD part for any performance reason, but it may be the only choice in systems that mandate integrated graphics.