AMD Radeon R7 M340 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and AMD Radeon R7 M340 represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics, separated by roughly two years of architectural evolution. The data positions the GTX 765M as the clear performance leader, with a 32nd percentile ranking against all GPUs compared to the R7 M340's 30th percentile. Its average benchmark score of 5501 outpaces the AMD part's 5063 by a meaningful margin, a gap reflected across every shared workload in the fact pack.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison shows a decisive sweep for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, winning both shared benchmark tests. The largest delta appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 765M scores 7176 against the R7 M340's 4932, a 45.5% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it indicates that in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the NVIDIA part delivers nearly half again as much performance. The GTX 765M also wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 6714 versus 5193, a 29.3% margin. While smaller than the OpenCL gap, this still represents a substantial performance cushion in modern graphics API workloads.

These results align with the broader benchmark picture. The GTX 765M's average score of 5501 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483). The R7 M340, by contrast, sits at 5063, exactly matching the AMD Radeon R7 240 and trailing the AMD FirePro W4170M by 0.6%. The NVIDIA part's closest rival, the MX130, is essentially a statistical tie, while the AMD part's nearest competitor is the R7 240 at a perfect 0% delta. The GTX 765M also holds a 0.6% edge over the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and a 0.7% deficit against the AMD FirePro M4000, showing it competes in a slightly higher performance tier than the R7 M340.

The 45.5% OpenCL delta deserves particular attention. It suggests that the GTX 765M's architectural strengths — its larger shader array and higher memory bandwidth — translate directly into compute throughput. The 29.3% Vulkan win, while smaller, confirms the advantage persists in gaming-oriented workloads rather than being confined to synthetic compute tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M leads with an average benchmark score of 5501, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M340's 5063, a difference of roughly 8.7%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 765M scores 7176 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R7 M340 scores 4932, giving the NVIDIA part a 45.5% advantage in that test.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD Radeon R7 M340 wins?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins both, with the R7 M340 recording zero wins.

Q: What is the GTX 765M's closest rival according to the data?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the closest rival, with an average score of 5508 against the GTX 765M's 5501, a delta of just -0.1%.

Q: How does the R7 M340 compare to its nearest competitors?

A: The R7 M340's average score of 5063 exactly matches the AMD Radeon R7 240 (0% delta) and sits 0.6% below the AMD FirePro W4170M.

Q: What percentile ranking does each GPU hold?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M ranks in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon R7 M340 ranks in the 30th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, which explains much of the performance gap. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R7 M340 uses the Meso chip based on GCN 3.0, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both share the same process node, but the transistor budgets differ significantly: the GTX 765M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the R7 M340 contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. This gives the AMD part a slightly higher transistor density at 12.4M per mm² versus the NVIDIA part's 11.5M per mm², but the NVIDIA chip's larger overall budget provides substantially more compute resources.

The shader configurations diverge sharply. The GTX 765M features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations units. The R7 M340 offers 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 2.4x advantage in shading units for the NVIDIA part, a 3.2x advantage in TMUs, and a 2x advantage in ROPs. The impact on throughput rates is predictable: the GTX 765M delivers 13.81 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 55.23 GTexel/s texture rate, while the R7 M340 manages 8.168 GPixel/s and 20.42 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 compute tells a similar story, with the GTX 765M producing 1,325.6 GFLOPS against the R7 M340's 653.4 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the AMD part lists FP16 at 653.4 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the NVIDIA part does not report FP16 capabilities.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M340 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, producing just 16.00 GB/s — a quarter of the NVIDIA part's bandwidth. Clock speeds partially compensate on the AMD side: the R7 M340 runs at 943 MHz base and 1021 MHz boost, while the GTX 765M runs at 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost. But the NVIDIA part's wider bus and faster memory type overwhelm the AMD clock advantage.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The GTX 765M is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK106 chip, while the R7 M340 uses GCN 3.0 with the Meso chip. The NVIDIA part integrates 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, versus 1,550 million on 125 mm² for the AMD part. Transistor density slightly favors AMD at 12.4M/mm² versus 11.5M/mm².

Clock speeds run in the AMD part's favor: 943 MHz base and 1021 MHz boost for the R7 M340, compared to 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost for the GTX 765M. The memory clocks are nearly identical at 1002 MHz for the NVIDIA part and 1000 MHz for the AMD part, but effective data rates differ: 4 Gbps for the GTX 765M versus 2 Gbps for the R7 M340. Memory type and bus width also diverge, with GDDR5 on 128-bit for NVIDIA and DDR3 on 64-bit for AMD, producing bandwidths of 64.13 GB/s and 16.00 GB/s respectively.

Compute resources heavily favor NVIDIA: 768 shading units versus 320, 64 TMUs versus 20, and 16 ROPs versus 8. Pixel rate is 13.81 GPixel/s versus 8.168 GPixel/s, texture rate is 55.23 GTexel/s versus 20.42 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 1,325.6 GFLOPS versus 653.4 GFLOPS. The R7 M340 lists FP16 at 653.4 GFLOPS, a field the GTX 765M leaves null.

Thermal and interface specs also differ. The GTX 765M carries a 75 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and connects via MXM-B (3.0). The R7 M340 lists no TDP, no slot width, no power connectors, and uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The NVIDIA part's display outputs are marked "Portable Device Dependent," while the AMD part leaves that field null. API support is comparable, with both listing DirectX 12 (though NVIDIA's is 11_0 and AMD's is 12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (1.2.175 for NVIDIA, 1.2.170 for AMD). Release dates show the GTX 765M launching in 2013 and the R7 M340 in 2015, with both now end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a one-sided picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins both head-to-head benchmarks, making it the clear choice for OpenCL compute workloads, where its 45.5% advantage is decisive, and for Vulkan-based applications, where it leads by 29.3%. Its higher pixel and texture rates suggest better performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios, and its 4x memory bandwidth advantage indicates it will handle high-resolution textures and memory-intensive tasks with far less bottlenecking. The GTX 765M's larger shader count and FP32 output make it suitable for general-purpose GPU compute and modern game rendering.

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its strengths are qualitative: a higher boost clock of 1021 MHz versus 863 MHz, and a smaller die that may offer efficiency benefits, though the absence of a TDP figure prevents direct power comparison. Its 1:1 FP16 ratio suggests potential in workloads that leverage half-precision math, but the GTX 765M does not report FP16 at all, making a direct comparison impossible. The R7 M340's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and newer GCN 3.0 architecture indicate it is a more modern design, and its higher transistor density points to a more compact implementation.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 M340 across every shared workload. The 45.5% OpenCL and 29.3% Vulkan leads are substantial, and the 438-point average score gap (5501 versus 5063) places the two GPUs in different performance tiers. The GTX 765M's 32nd percentile ranking versus the R7 M340's 30th percentile confirms this separation.

For users prioritizing raw performance in compute or gaming, the GTX 765M is the data-backed choice. Its 768 shading units, 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, and 1,325.6 GFLOPS FP32 output provide the resources needed for demanding workloads. The R7 M340, with 320 shading units, 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, and 653.4 GFLOPS, offers roughly half the compute throughput and a quarter of the memory bandwidth.

The R7 M340 is not without merit. Its higher clock speeds and newer GCN 3.0 architecture suggest it is a more efficient design, and its smaller die may translate to lower power draw in practice, though no TDP is listed to confirm this. Its FP16 capability at 1:1 ratio could benefit specific machine learning or media applications. However, the absence of any benchmark win in the head-to-head data means these advantages are theoretical rather than demonstrated.

The verdict from the numbers: choose the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M for performance-critical tasks where compute and memory bandwidth matter. Choose the AMD Radeon R7 M340 only if its architectural traits — newer design generation, higher clocks, FP16 support — align with specific niche requirements, accepting that benchmark results show it trailing the GTX 765M in every measured category. The GTX 765M wins this comparison on demonstrated performance; the R7 M340 wins on paper specifications that do not translate into benchmark victories.