AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs AMD Radeon R8 M445DX Comparison

# AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs AMD Radeon R8 M445DX

The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics and AMD Radeon R8 M445DX represent two distinct approaches to integrated graphics from the same vendor, separated by two years of silicon evolution. The R8 M445DX posts a 15.1% higher score in the sole shared benchmark, yet both parts sit within a narrow performance band—the R7 Graphics at the 29th percentile of all GPUs and the R8 M445DX at the 27th percentile. The data reveals that the newer R8 M445DX offers a meaningful raw compute advantage, but the R7 Graphics counters with a wider feature set and higher shading-unit count. Neither part escapes the bottom third of the GPU hierarchy, making the choice between them largely a question of platform availability rather than outright capability.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points decisively toward the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX for users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4727 surpasses the R7 Graphics' 4015 by 15.1%, a substantial margin for integrated-class silicon. This advantage appears consistent with the R8 M445DX's higher FP32 throughput of 653.4 GFLOPS versus 553.0 GFLOPS for the R7 Graphics, along with its faster texture rate of 20.42 GTexel/s compared to 17.28 GTexel/s.

However, the R7 Graphics holds its own in specific scenarios. Its average benchmark score of 4998 exceeds the R8 M445DX's 4727 by approximately 5.7%, though this figure includes a Vulkan result that the R8 M445DX lacks entirely. The R7 Graphics' Geekbench Vulkan score of 5980 demonstrates capability in modern graphics APIs that the R8 M445DX cannot match—at least not based on available data.

For system builders, the R7 Graphics offers the broader API feature set with its larger shading unit count (384 vs 320) and higher transistor count (2,410 million vs 1,550 million). The R8 M445DX counters with a newer GCN 3.0 architecture, a higher transistor density (12.4M / mm² vs 9.8M / mm²), and explicit FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio. The R8 M445DX also demonstrates superior pixel throughput at 8.168 GPixel/s versus 5.760 GPixel/s for the R7 Graphics.

The verdict hinges on use case: the R8 M445DX wins on raw compute density and efficiency, while the R7 Graphics wins on sheer shading resources and API coverage. Given that both are end-of-life integrated parts, the data suggests the R8 M445DX is the stronger performer where it matters most—actual benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs spans two generations of GCN. The R7 Graphics employs GCN 2.0 on a chip codenamed Spectre Lite, fabricated by GlobalFoundries at 28 nm, while the R8 M445DX uses GCN 3.0 on a Meso chip built by TSMC at the same 28 nm process node. This generational leap explains several key differences in their specifications.

Transistor budgets tell a curious story. The R7 Graphics integrates 2,410 million transistors across a 245 mm² die, yielding a density of 9.8M transistors per mm². The R8 M445DX packs only 1,550 million transistors onto a 125 mm² die but achieves a higher density of 12.4M per mm². This suggests the R8 M445DX's Meso chip is a more compact, efficiently organized design despite having fewer total resources.

The shading configuration favors the R7 Graphics: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R8 M445DX scales down to 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, but retains 8 ROPs. This 20% reduction in shading units is partially offset by the R8 M445DX's higher clocks—a base of 780 MHz and boost up to 1021 MHz, whereas the R7 Graphics has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of "System Shared."

Memory architecture is identical in form: both use System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. Neither part has dedicated VRAM, reinforcing their integrated positioning. The R8 M445DX's memory clock of "System Shared" matches the R7 Graphics, meaning system RAM performance will dictate actual memory behavior.

Feature support diverges in one notable area: FP16 computation. The R8 M445DX explicitly lists FP16 performance at 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1), while the R7 Graphics lists no FP16 capability. This makes the R8 M445DX potentially more versatile for mixed-precision workloads, though the R7 Graphics compensates with higher raw FP32 output at 553.0 GFLOPS—though the R8 M445DX still wins here with 653.4 GFLOPS.

Both parts support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API compatibility is identical. The R7 Graphics launched on 2014-02-16, while the R8 M445DX followed on 2016-05-14, reflecting the generational gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it delivers a clear verdict. The R8 M445DX scores 4727 against the R7 Graphics' 4015, a delta of 15.1% in favor of the newer part. This margin is substantial enough to represent a real performance tier difference, not merely run-to-run variance.

Examining what drives this OpenCL advantage, the R8 M445DX's higher clock speeds appear pivotal. With a boost clock of 1021 MHz, the R8 M445DX can sustain higher throughput per shading unit than the R7 Graphics, which has no listed boost clock. The R8 M445DX's FP32 output of 653.4 GFLOPS exceeds the R7 Graphics' 553.0 GFLOPS by 18.1%, closely mirroring the benchmark delta.

Texture throughput follows a similar pattern: the R8 M445DX achieves 20.42 GTexel/s versus 17.28 GTexel/s for the R7 Graphics, a margin of 18.2%. Pixel rate shows an even larger gap, with the R8 M445DX delivering 8.168 GPixel/s against 5.760 GPixel/s—a 41.8% advantage that likely stems from its higher ROP clock.

The R7 Graphics does not go entirely unanswered. Its average benchmark score of 4998 across two tests exceeds the R8 M445DX's single-test average of 4727 by 5.7%. The R7 Graphics' Vulkan score of 5980 suggests that in Vulkan-based workloads, it may outperform the R8 M445DX significantly—though no Vulkan result exists for the R8 M445DX to confirm this.

Interpreting the delta, the R8 M445DX wins the only direct comparison, but the R7 Graphics demonstrates broader API proficiency. The data implies that for OpenCL-centric applications, the R8 M445DX is the clear choice, while Vulkan users might prefer the R7 Graphics based on its available score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX scores 4727, which is 15.1% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics' score of 4015 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Does the R7 Graphics have any benchmark advantage over the R8 M445DX?

A: Yes, the R7 Graphics has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5980, which is not matched by any Vulkan result for the R8 M445DX. Its average benchmark score of 4998 also exceeds the R8 M445DX's 4727 average.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between these two GPUs?

A: The R7 Graphics uses GCN 2.0 architecture on a Spectre Lite chip with 384 shading units, while the R8 M445DX uses GCN 3.0 on a Meso chip with 320 shading units. The R8 M445DX has a higher transistor density (12.4M / mm² vs 9.8M / mm²) and smaller die size (125 mm² vs 245 mm²).

Q: Which GPU has better theoretical compute performance?

A: The R8 M445DX achieves 653.4 GFLOPS FP32 and 653.4 GFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the R7 Graphics delivers 553.0 GFLOPS FP32 and no listed FP16 performance.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, providing identical API compatibility.

Q: What is the production status of these GPUs?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life, with the R7 Graphics released on 2014-02-16 and the R8 M445DX released on 2016-05-14.

Where Each One Wins

The R8 M445DX claims victory in the raw compute arena. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4727 beats the R7 Graphics' 4015 by 15.1%, making it the stronger choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications such as video encoding, physics simulation, and computational tasks that leverage this API. Its higher FP32 output (653.4 GFLOPS vs 553.0 GFLOPS) and faster texture rate (20.42 GTexel/s vs 17.28 GTexel/s) reinforce this position. The R8 M445DX also wins on pixel throughput, delivering 8.168 GPixel/s compared to 5.760 GPixel/s—a 41.8% advantage that benefits fill-rate-limited scenarios.

The R7 Graphics stakes its claim on API breadth and shading resources. Its 384 shading units exceed the R8 M445DX's 320 by 20%, providing more parallel execution contexts for workloads that scale with shader count rather than clock speed. The R7 Graphics' Vulkan score of 5980, while not directly comparable to any R8 M445DX result, indicates strong Vulkan performance that could translate to modern gaming and compute workloads. Its average benchmark score of 4998 also surpasses the R8 M445DX's 4727, suggesting overall consistency across multiple test types.

For integrated graphics in laptops and compact systems, the R8 M445DX's smaller die (125 mm² vs 245 mm²) and higher transistor density imply better power efficiency per unit of performance, though neither part lists a TDP for the R8 M445DX while the R7 Graphics carries a 25 W TDP. The R8 M445DX's explicit FP16 support at 1:1 ratio opens doors to machine learning inference and mixed-precision workloads that the R7 Graphics cannot handle.

The R7 Graphics counters with a larger transistor budget (2,410 million vs 1,550 million), which may correlate with more robust feature implementation in its GCN 2.0 design. Its display outputs are "Motherboard Dependent," while the R8 M445DX uses "Portable Device Dependent," suggesting different target platforms—the R7 Graphics for desktop IGPs and the R8 M445DX for laptops.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every measurable specification. The R7 Graphics uses a Spectre Lite chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, while the R8 M445DX employs a Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture. Manufacturing differs: GlobalFoundries produces the R7 Graphics at 28 nm, while TSMC fabricates the R8 M445DX at the same 28 nm node.

Transistor counts favor the R7 Graphics at 2,410 million versus 1,550 million, but die size reverses this—the R7 Graphics spans 245 mm² while the R8 M445DX occupies only 125 mm². Transistor density consequently favors the R8 M445DX at 12.4M / mm² versus 9.8M / mm².

Clock specifications exist only for the R8 M445DX, which lists a base clock of 780 MHz and boost clock of 1021 MHz. The R7 Graphics has no base or boost clock listed. Shading units differ by 64: the R7 Graphics has 384 while the R8 M445DX has 320. TMUs follow suit with 24 versus 20, while both retain 8 ROPs.

Pixel rate favors the R8 M445DX at 8.168 GPixel/s versus 5.760 GPixel/s. Texture rate similarly favors the R8 M445DX at 20.42 GTexel/s against 17.28 GTexel/s. FP32 output goes to the R8 M445DX at 653.4 GFLOPS versus 553.0 GFLOPS, and the R8 M445DX adds FP16 at 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1) while the R7 Graphics lists none.

The R7 Graphics carries a TDP of 25 W, while the R8 M445DX has no TDP listed. Memory configurations match—both use System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. API support is identical across DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Display outputs differ: "Motherboard Dependent" for the R7 Graphics versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the R8 M445DX. Release dates separate them by over two years, with the R7 Graphics launching on 2014-02-16 and the R8 M445DX on 2016-05-14.