AMD Radeon R7 M440 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and AMD Radeon R7 M440 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they target very different performance tiers. Benchmark data shows the GTX 765M holds a decisive lead in every available test, yet the R7 M440 counters with double the memory capacity and a newer feature set. This analysis breaks down the numbers to determine which GPU makes sense for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce GTX 765M wins both direct comparisons in the data, and it does so by a wide margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 765M scores 7,176 against the R7 M440’s 5,214. That is a 37.6% advantage for NVIDIA, a substantial gap that indicates the GTX 765M delivers roughly a third more compute throughput in this API. The Vulkan result narrows the gap but still favors NVIDIA: 6,714 versus 5,751, a 16.7% lead. While the R7 M440 closes some distance under Vulkan, it never overtakes the older NVIDIA part.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all tests, the GTX 765M posts 5,501, while the R7 M440 lands at 5,483. That is a razor-thin 0.3% overall difference, which seems to contradict the head-to-head results. The explanation lies in the benchmark composition: the GTX 765M has three recorded scores (including a Geekbench Metal result of 2,612), while the R7 M440 only has two. The Metal score drags down NVIDIA’s average, but in the two shared tests, NVIDIA wins decisively. The data suggests that on cross-platform workloads like OpenCL and Vulkan, the GTX 765M is clearly faster; the Metal result is an outlier that hurts its aggregate standing.

The nearestRivals data confirms these two GPUs are closely matched in overall standing. The GTX 765M’s closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, scores 5,508, just 0.1% above it. The R7 M440 sits 0.3% below the GTX 765M’s average. Both GPUs occupy the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are statistically indistinguishable in aggregate performance despite the lopsided head-to-head results. For practical purposes, if a workload uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 765M is the clear pick; if a workload relies on Metal, the R7 M440 may edge ahead due to the GTX 765M’s weak Metal showing.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The GTX 765M uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, built on the GK106 chip, while the R7 M440 uses AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, built on the Meso chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process node, so there is no manufacturing advantage either way. The GTX 765M packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The R7 M440 uses fewer transistors — 1,550 million — on a smaller 125 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher density of 12.4M per mm².

The compute resources tell a clear story. The GTX 765M features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The R7 M440 is far more modest, with 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This explains the GTX 765M’s performance advantage: it has 2.4 times the shading units and 3.2 times the TMUs. Pixel and texture rates follow accordingly. The GTX 765M achieves 13.81 GPixel/s and 55.23 GTexel/s, while the R7 M440 manages 7.128 GPixel/s and 17.82 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is similarly lopsided: the GTX 765M delivers 1,325.6 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, versus 570.2 GFLOPS for the R7 M440. The R7 M440 does offer FP16 at the same rate (570.2 GFLOPS, 1:1), but the GTX 765M’s raw FP32 power is more than double.

Memory architecture diverges significantly. The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M440 doubles capacity to 4 GB but uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s — less than a quarter of NVIDIA’s bandwidth. Clock speeds are not directly comparable since the R7 M440’s core clocks are not listed, but the memory clocks show 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the GTX 765M versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7 M440. The GTX 765M also has a boost clock of 863 MHz alongside a 797 MHz base, while AMD’s part has no listed boost behavior.

API support differs in an interesting way. The R7 M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 765M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and the GTX 765M has Vulkan 1.2.175 versus the R7 M440’s Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M440’s newer feature level may matter for specific DirectX 12 titles, but the GTX 765M’s raw performance likely compensates in most scenarios. Physical specifications also differ: the GTX 765M is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, while the R7 M440 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no listed TDP. The GTX 765M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, whereas the R7 M440 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 7,176 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 37.6% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M440’s 5,214. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the R7 M440 have any performance advantage at all?

A: In the shared benchmarks, no. The GTX 765M wins both OpenCL and Vulkan tests. However, the R7 M440 does not have a Metal benchmark score recorded, unlike the GTX 765M’s 2,612 result, so its performance in that API is unknown and could potentially be competitive.

Q: Why is the average benchmark score so close if the GTX 765M wins every head-to-head?

A: The GTX 765M has three benchmark scores — 2,612 in Metal, 7,176 in OpenCL, and 6,714 in Vulkan — which average to 5,501. The R7 M440 only has two scores (5,214 OpenCL, 5,751 Vulkan), averaging 5,483. The GTX 765M’s low Metal score pulls its average down, making the aggregate difference just 0.3% despite its large wins in shared tests.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have, and does it matter?

A: The GTX 765M has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the R7 M440 has 4 GB of DDR3. The R7 M440 offers double the capacity, which can help with larger textures or datasets, but its memory bandwidth is only 14.40 GB/s versus 64.13 GB/s for the GTX 765M. The NVIDIA part’s bandwidth advantage is massive and likely matters more than capacity in most tasks.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the R7 M440 can expose feature level 12_0, which may enable certain effects or optimizations in newer games, though the GTX 765M’s higher compute throughput may offset this in practice.

Q: Are these GPUs still relevant for modern systems?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life and were released years apart — the GTX 765M in 2013 and the R7 M440 in 2016. The GTX 765M’s successor is the GeForce 800M, while the R7 M440’s successor is Polaris Mobile. Their 28 nm process and limited API support suggest they are best suited for older or less demanding titles.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-heavy tasks: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M. It leads by 37.6% in OpenCL and 16.7% in Vulkan, has 2.4 times the shading units, and delivers 4.5 times the memory bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput of 1,325.6 GFLOPS crushes the R7 M440’s 570.2 GFLOPS. For anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads — whether gaming, rendering, or compute — the GTX 765M is the superior choice.

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 has one clear advantage: memory capacity. Its 4 GB of DDR3 doubles the GTX 765M’s 2 GB GDDR5, which can be a deciding factor for workloads that exceed 2 GB of video memory. However, the severe bandwidth penalty (14.40 GB/s versus 64.13 GB/s) means that extra capacity is slow. The R7 M440 also has a newer DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_0) and a later release date (2016 versus 2013), which may matter for specific software compatibility.

The aggregate benchmark scores are nearly identical — 5,501 for NVIDIA versus 5,483 for AMD — but that is misleading. The GTX 765M’s poor Metal score (2,612) drags its average down. In the two tests both GPUs share, NVIDIA wins decisively. If your application uses Metal, the R7 M440 may be a safer bet, but that is speculative since no Metal score is recorded for AMD’s part. For everything else, the GTX 765M is the stronger GPU.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip with Kepler architecture, while the R7 M440 uses Meso with GCN 3.0. Both are 28 nm TSMC parts, but the GTX 765M has more transistors (2,540 million versus 1,550 million) and a larger die (221 mm² versus 125 mm²). The R7 M440 has a slightly higher transistor density at 12.4M/mm² versus 11.5M/mm².

Compute units favor NVIDIA: 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs versus AMD’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 13.81 GPixel/s versus 7.128 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 55.23 GTexel/s versus 17.82 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,325.6 GFLOPS versus 570.2 GFLOPS. The R7 M440 adds FP16 at 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1), which the GTX 765M does not list.

Memory differs radically: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus (64.13 GB/s) versus 4 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus (14.40 GB/s). Memory clock is 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for AMD. The GTX 765M has a 75 W TDP and is an MXM module with MXM-B (3.0) interface; the R7 M440 is an IGP with PCIe 3.0 x8. API support shows the R7 M440 with DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the GTX 765M’s DirectX 12 (11_0), while both support OpenGL 4.6 and similar Vulkan versions (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170). The GTX 765M has a boost clock of 863 MHz and base of 797 MHz; the R7 M440 lists no core clocks.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins in: OpenCL performance, leading by 37.6%. Vulkan performance, leading by 16.7%. All compute-heavy tasks like rendering, physics simulation, or GPGPU workloads. Any scenario requiring high memory bandwidth, with 64.13 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. Games that rely on fill rates, given its 3.1x higher pixel rate and 3.1x higher texture rate. Applications that benefit from FP32 throughput, where it offers 1,325.6 GFLOPS versus 570.2 GFLOPS.

AMD Radeon R7 M440 wins in: Memory capacity, offering 4 GB versus 2 GB — useful if a workload needs more than 2 GB of video memory. DirectX 12 feature level 12_0 support, which the GTX 765M lacks. FP16 compute capability at 570.2 GFLOPS, which the GTX 765M does not list. A smaller die size (125 mm² versus 221 mm²), potentially indicating lower manufacturing costs. The R7 M440’s IGP form factor may also suit ultra-thin laptops where an MXM module is impractical, though the GTX 765M’s 75 W TDP and MXM design target larger chassis.

In practice, the GTX 765M is the better performer in every shared benchmark, and its architectural advantages are overwhelming. The R7 M440 is a capable option only where its 4 GB capacity or newer API feature set is a hard requirement. For most users, the data says choose the GTX 765M.