AMD Radeon R7 M445 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and AMD Radeon R7 M445 represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics, separated by three years of architectural evolution. The data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the specifications tell a more nuanced story about how each GPU achieves its results. The GTX 765M, a 2013 Kepler part, decisively outperforms the 2016 GCN 3.0-based R7 M445 in the only shared benchmark, yet the R7 M445 counters with double the memory capacity and a more modern feature set. This comparison is not merely about raw speed; it is about the trade-offs between compute resources, memory bandwidth, and architectural efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable data point is the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, and it is not close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 7,176, while the AMD Radeon R7 M445 manages 5,358. This translates to a 33.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part. In practical terms, this delta is substantial enough to represent a full performance tier difference in compute-heavy workloads. For context, the GTX 765M’s average benchmark score across all tests is 5,501, while the R7 M445’s average is 5,358, a difference of 2.7% in favor of the older card. The OpenCL result shows that the GTX 765M's advantage is even more pronounced in that specific API.

When looking at the nearest rivals for each card, the performance positioning becomes clearer. The GTX 765M sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, which scores 5,508 (a 0.1% delta). The AMD Radeon R7 M440 is 0.3% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 trails by 0.6%. The AMD FirePro M4000 leads by 0.7%. This clustering suggests the GTX 765M is firmly in a mid-range mobile tier. The R7 M445, at the 31st percentile, is nearly adjacent, but its rival list tells a different story. Its closest competitor is the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (0.2% behind), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (0.7% ahead), the GeForce 930A (0.8% ahead), and the GeForce GTX 980M (0.9% ahead). The presence of the GTX 980M in that list is notable; it suggests that the R7 M445's score is competitive with a much higher-end part under specific benchmark conditions, though the 0.9% delta is marginal.

The 33.9% win for the GTX 765M in OpenCL is the headline number. It indicates that NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, despite its age, maintains a significant lead in raw compute throughput. The R7 M445, with its newer GCN design, does not close this gap in the available data. The wins tally is 1-0 in favor of the NVIDIA card, and there is no benchmark where the AMD part takes the lead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M has an average benchmark score of 5,501, which is 2.7% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M445's 5,358.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 765M in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 765M scores 7,176 compared to the R7 M445's 5,358, a difference of 33.9%.

Q: Does the R7 M445 win any benchmark tests?

A: No. In the available head-to-head data, the R7 M445 has zero wins, while the GTX 765M has one.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M445 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, providing 32.00 GB/s.

Q: How do their percentiles compare to all other GPUs?

A: The GTX 765M sits at the 32nd percentile, while the R7 M445 is just below at the 31st percentile.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M445 has a boost clock of 920 MHz, which is higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M's 863 MHz boost.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins in every performance metric where data exists. Its 1,325.6 GFLOPS of FP32 compute is more than double the R7 M445's 588.8 GFLOPS. The pixel rate is 13.81 GPixel/s versus 7.360 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 55.23 GTexel/s against 18.40 GTexel/s. These are not marginal leads; they are decisive advantages that point to the GTX 765M being the superior choice for any application that leverages raw shading, texturing, or compute throughput. The memory bandwidth advantage of 64.13 GB/s vs. 32.00 GB/s further cements this, as it allows the GTX 765M to feed its larger number of execution units more effectively.

The AMD Radeon R7 M445, however, has its own wins in configuration. It offers 4 GB of VRAM, which is double the GTX 765M's 2 GB. For workloads that are capacity-bound rather than bandwidth-bound, such as holding larger texture sets or data buffers, this could be an advantage. It also has a higher boost clock (920 MHz vs. 863 MHz) and a more modern architecture (GCN 3.0 vs. Kepler). The R7 M445 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) compared to the GTX 765M's DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a feature-level difference that could matter for specific modern titles. However, these wins are not reflected in the benchmark scores, indicating that the architectural efficiency of Kepler overcomes the raw clock speed and memory capacity of GCN 3.0 in the tested workload.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in their core configurations. The GTX 765M is built around 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The R7 M445 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This is a 2.4x difference in shader count and a 3.2x difference in TMUs, which directly explains the massive texture rate and FP32 computation gap.

Memory specifications also differ sharply. The GTX 765M uses a 128-bit memory bus with a bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s, while the R7 M445 uses a 64-bit bus with only 32.00 GB/s. The memory clock is nearly identical (1002 MHz vs. 1000 MHz, both 4 Gbps effective), so the bus width is the sole reason for the bandwidth disparity. The R7 M445 compensates with 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, but the halved bandwidth is a severe bottleneck for its fewer cores.

Power and physical specifications are also distinct. The GTX 765M has a TDP of 75 W and is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface. The R7 M445 has no listed TDP and is an IGP with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. This indicates the R7 M445 is designed for a more integrated, power-efficient implementation, whereas the GTX 765M is a discrete module requiring dedicated cooling and power delivery.

Architecture Differences

The architectural philosophies are fundamentally different. The GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip, based on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm TSMC process. It contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The R7 M445 uses the Meso chip, based on AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving a higher density of 12.4M per mm². The GTX 765M is a larger, more complex chip, while the R7 M445 is smaller and more densely packed.

The FP16 capability is a key differentiator. The R7 M445 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio to FP32 (588.8 GFLOPS for both), while the GTX 765M has no listed FP16 performance. This suggests the AMD part is better suited for workloads that can utilize half-precision math, such as certain machine learning inference or image processing tasks. The GTX 765M's FP32 performance of 1,325.6 GFLOPS, however, dwarfs the R7 M445's FP32 output, making it the stronger choice for standard precision compute.

API support shows a split. The GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R7 M445 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M445 has a higher DirectX 12 feature level, but the GTX 765M has a slightly newer Vulkan version. The R7 M445 also has a higher boost clock (920 MHz vs. 863 MHz), which is a minor architectural tuning difference, but it cannot compensate for the 2.4x fewer shading units.

The Verdict

For any task that relies on compute throughput, shading, or texture processing, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the clear choice. The 33.9% lead in OpenCL, combined with 2.25x the FP32 performance and 3x the texture rate, makes it the superior GPU for gaming and GPU-accelerated applications that are not memory-capacity-bound. The GTX 765M's 75 W TDP, while requiring a dedicated MXM slot, indicates it is a more capable discrete solution.

The AMD Radeon R7 M445 is the better pick for specific scenarios involving large memory footprints. Its 4 GB VRAM is double that of the GTX 765M, which could be a deciding factor for workloads that need to store large datasets locally on the GPU. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_0) also gives it a forward-looking feature advantage over the GTX 765M's 11_0 level. However, the benchmark data does not favor it. With a 31st percentile ranking and an average score of 5,358, it trails the GTX 765M in every measured performance category. The R7 M445 is best suited for a user who prioritizes memory capacity and modern API support over raw speed, while the GTX 765M is the pick for anyone who needs maximum performance in a mobile form factor, even if it means accepting an older architecture and less VRAM. The data unequivocally shows the GTX 765M is the faster GPU; the R7 M445's only argument is its capacity and feature set, not its speed.