AMD Radeon R7 M340 vs AMD Radeon R7 M465 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841, while the AMD Radeon R7 M340 scores 4932. The M465 wins by 18.4%.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R7 M465 is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M435 (5859), 1.5% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929), and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731). The R7 M340 is exactly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063), 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034), and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The R7 M465 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 64-bit bus and 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M340 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

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

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The R7 M465 has 384 shading units, while the R7 M340 has 320 shading units.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The R7 M340 was released on May 4, 2015, while the R7 M465 was released on May 14, 2016. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two mobile GPUs by performance tier. The R7 M465 holds an 18.4% advantage in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, a substantial margin that reflects its higher shading unit count and faster memory subsystem. For users who need the best available compute performance from this generation, the M465 is the unambiguous choice.

The R7 M340, while slower, still holds its own against its immediate rivals. It ties the AMD Radeon R7 240 exactly at 5063, sits 0.6% above the AMD FirePro W4170M, and edges out the AMD Radeon R5 M430 by 0.9%. It also outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998) by 1.3%. This places it in a competent but mid-tier position.

Both GPUs share the same GCN 3.0 architecture, 28 nm process node, and identical transistor counts. The decisive factors are the internal execution resources and memory type. The M465 has 64 more shading units, 4 more texture mapping units, and its GDDR5 memory delivers more than double the bandwidth of the M340's DDR3. These are not minor tweaks; they are structural advantages that translate directly into the observed performance gap.

The M465 also has a higher average benchmark score of 5841 compared to the M340's 5063, a difference of 778 points. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the M465 sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the M340 sits at the 30th percentile. Neither is a top-tier part, but the M465 occupies a meaningfully higher rung.

For a system where OpenCL compute workloads matter, whether that is video encoding assistance, physics calculations, or general GPU-accelerated tasks, the M465 is the superior option. The M340 remains viable for lighter duties, and its Vulkan score of 5193 shows it has some headroom in that API, a metric not recorded for the M465. However, with only one head-to-head benchmark recorded, the M465 wins that test outright.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the R7 M465 scores 5841, and the R7 M340 scores 4932. The resulting delta is 18.4% in favor of the M465.

This is a decisive margin. To contextualize it, consider the nearest rival data. The M465's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon R5 M435, scores 5859, a mere 0.3% higher. This means the M465 is effectively performance-equivalent to that card. Meanwhile, the M340's closest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 240, scores exactly 5063, matching the M340's average. The gap between the M465 and the M340 is nearly as large as the entire spread between the M465 and its own nearest rivals.

The 18.4% delta also indicates that the M340 is not simply a slightly slower variant; it is a distinctly lower-tier part. The M465's score of 5841 places it within striking distance of the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929), while the M340's score of 4932 falls well below that mark. The M465 is also 1.9% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti, a desktop card from an earlier era, while the M340 does not appear in that rival list at all.

There is no recorded Vulkan benchmark for the M465 in the database, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible. The M340 does have a Vulkan score of 5193, which is higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting it may perform relatively better in Vulkan workloads. However, without the M465's corresponding Vulkan number, the OpenCL result remains the only definitive head-to-head data point, and it belongs to the M465.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on several key specifications. The most apparent difference is memory type and bandwidth. The M465 uses GDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 36.00 GB/s, while the M340 uses DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of memory and a 64-bit bus, but the memory technology alone accounts for a 2.25x bandwidth advantage for the M465.

Clock speeds also differ. The M465 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 1024 MHz. The M340 has a higher base clock of 943 MHz but a slightly lower boost clock of 1021 MHz. The memory clock differs as well: the M465 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the M340 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

The compute resources are not identical. The M465 features 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, whereas the M340 features 320 shading units and 20 texture mapping units. Both have 8 ROPs. These differences in execution units directly impact the fill rates and compute throughput.

The resulting performance figures reflect these gaps. The M465 achieves a pixel rate of 8.192 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 24.58 GTexel/s. The M340 achieves 8.168 GPixel/s and 20.42 GTexel/s. The pixel rates are nearly identical, but the texture rate is 20.4% higher on the M465. The FP32 compute is 786.4 GFLOPS for the M465 and 653.4 GFLOPS for the M340, a 20.4% advantage as well. The FP16 figures match the FP32 figures for both, at a 1:1 ratio.

Both GPUs share the same PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, the same 28 nm process node, the same 1,550 million transistors, the same 125 mm² die size, and the same transistor density of 12.4M / mm². The production status is end-of-life for both.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 3.0 architecture, which means the fundamental instruction set and compute model are identical. The chip names differ: the M465 uses the Topaz chip, while the M340 uses the Meso chip. Despite this, both chips are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC and pack the same 1,550 million transistors into the same 125 mm² die.

The architectural difference is therefore one of configuration rather than fundamental design. The M465 is a fuller implementation of the GCN 3.0 design, with 384 shading units arranged across 24 TMUs. The M340 is a more cut-down variant, with 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. This represents a 20% reduction in shading units and a 16.7% reduction in TMUs for the M340 relative to the M465.

The memory architecture differs as well. The M465 pairs its GCN 3.0 cores with GDDR5 memory, which allows for the higher 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M340 uses DDR3, which caps bandwidth at 16.00 GB/s. In a GCN architecture, memory bandwidth is critical for feeding the shader array, and the M340's lower bandwidth likely constrains its compute throughput in memory-bound workloads.

Both GPUs belong to the same "Gem System" generation, though the M465 is part of the R7 M400 series and the M340 is part of the R7 M300 series. Both share the same predecessor (Solar System) and successor (Polaris Mobile). The release dates are about a year apart, with the M340 arriving in May 2015 and the M465 in May 2016.

The API support is identical across both: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. There are no ray tracing or tensor cores on either chip, as these features were not part of the GCN 3.0 design.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M465 wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a margin of 18.4%. This makes it the clear choice for any application that relies on OpenCL acceleration, including general-purpose GPU compute tasks, video processing, and physics simulations.

The M465's higher texture rate of 24.58 GTexel/s and FP32 throughput of 786.4 GFLOPS indicate it can sustain heavier shading workloads. Its GDDR5 memory with 36.00 GB/s bandwidth provides a significant advantage in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, such as large texture fetches or data-heavy compute kernels.

The R7 M340 does have one recorded advantage: a Vulkan benchmark score of 5193. This is not compared directly to the M465, but it does show that the M340 can deliver respectable performance in the Vulkan API, which may be relevant for specific gaming or compute workloads that favor that API. Its higher base clock of 943 MHz versus the M465's 730 MHz could also provide a slight edge in lightly-threaded or latency-sensitive tasks where boost clocks are not sustained.

For pixel throughput, both GPUs are nearly equal, with the M465 at 8.192 GPixel/s and the M340 at 8.168 GPixel/s. This means that in pure rasterization-bound scenarios at low resolutions, the two GPUs may perform similarly, and the M340's higher base clock could help it keep up in those cases.

However, the overall data favors the M465. Its average benchmark score is 5841 versus 5063 for the M340, and its percentile ranking is 33rd versus 30th. The M465 also holds a 20.4% advantage in both texture rate and FP32 compute. For any sustained compute workload, the M465 is the superior part. The M340 is best suited for systems where the lower base clock and DDR3 memory are sufficient for basic graphics output and light acceleration, but it cannot match the M465 in raw performance.