AMD Radeon R7 M465 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single decisive benchmark result between these two mobile graphics processors. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M scores 6389 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841 points. This gives the NVIDIA part a 9.4% advantage, a meaningful margin that places it clearly ahead in raw compute performance.

Context from the database's nearest rival comparisons reinforces this outcome. The GTX 580M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R7 M465 sits at the 33rd percentile. That four-percentile gap reflects the 9.4% scoring difference and suggests the NVIDIA chip occupies a slightly higher tier of overall performance among all recorded graphics processors.

Looking at the rival sets, the GTX 580M is effectively tied with NVIDIA's own GeForce GTX 460 SE, both scoring exactly 6389 with a delta of 0%. It trails the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell by only 0.3% (6407 vs 6389), a negligible difference for a modern workstation card, and it leads the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 by 0.9% (6389 vs 6330) and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 by 1% (6389 vs 6327). These tight margins indicate that the GTX 580M performs in a well-defined cluster of mid-range GPUs from different eras.

The R7 M465's rival data tells a similar story at a slightly lower performance band. It is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M435 (5859 vs 5841), 1.5% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929 vs 5841), and 1.9% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955 vs 5841). Its only win in this group is against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti, which it beats by 1.9% (5841 vs 5731). The clustering here is tight as well, but every rival comparison places the R7 M465 in a lower scoring neighborhood than the GTX 580M's neighborhood.

The head-to-head delta of 9.4% is the single most important number in this comparison. It is not a small edge that could be attributed to driver variance or test conditions; it is a consistent, measurable performance gap across the OpenCL workload. The GTX 580M wins the only recorded benchmark, and it wins by a margin that is meaningful for compute-oriented tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M uses the GF114 chip based on Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 uses the Topaz chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The newer 28 nm node gives AMD a density advantage: the R7 M465 packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, for a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The GTX 580M carries 1,950 million transistors across a much larger 332 mm² die, yielding only 5.9M per mm².

These process and density differences explain several downstream consequences. The GTX 580M's larger die and older node contribute to its 100 W TDP, while the R7 M465 has no recorded TDP in the database, likely reflecting its more efficient design. The GTX 580M also uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and is packaged as an MXM Module, whereas the R7 M465 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Core resource allocation differs substantially despite both parts having 384 shading units. The GTX 580M has 64 texture mapping units and 32 raster operation pipelines. The R7 M465 has only 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This is a significant architectural divergence: NVIDIA allocates far more hardware to texture and pixel processing, while AMD concentrates its 384 shaders with a leaner fixed-function backend.

Memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The GTX 580M has a 256 bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), producing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M465 has a 64 bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), producing only 36.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA part has nearly 2.7 times the memory bandwidth, a critical factor for many compute and gaming workloads.

Clock behavior differs as well. The GTX 580M has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 750 MHz. The R7 M465 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 1024 MHz. Despite its higher boost clock, the R7 M465 cannot overcome the GTX 580M's bandwidth and texture throughput advantages in the recorded benchmark.

Feature support shows a mixed picture. The GTX 580M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. The R7 M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has more modern API coverage, particularly with Vulkan support, which may matter for specific applications even though it loses the compute benchmark.

The R7 M465 also has a notable compute capability that the GTX 580M lacks: it offers FP16 at 786.4 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to its FP32 performance. The GTX 580M has no recorded FP16 figure. This could give the AMD part an edge in workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, even though its FP32 output is lower.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 580M wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rating of 952.3 GFLOPS exceeds the R7 M465's 786.4 GFLOPS by roughly 21%. Its pixel rate of 9.920 GPixel/s beats the R7 M465's 8.192 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s nearly doubles the R7 M465's 24.58 GTexel/s. These specifications align with the 9.4% OpenCL benchmark victory and indicate the NVIDIA part is better suited for general compute workloads, fill-rate-bound rendering, and texture-heavy tasks.

The R7 M465 wins in architectural efficiency and modern feature support. Its 28 nm process and 125 mm² die size deliver far higher transistor density (12.4M vs 5.9M per mm²), which typically translates to lower power draw per unit of performance. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the GTX 580M lacks entirely, and it reaches DirectX 12 (12_0) feature level compared to the GTX 580M's 12 (11_0). For applications that require Vulkan or newer DirectX 12 features, the R7 M465 is the only one of the two that can comply.

The R7 M465 also has a boost clock of 1024 MHz against a base of 730 MHz, giving the GPU headroom for dynamic performance scaling in thermally constrained mobile chassis. The GTX 580M has no recorded boost clock, suggesting it operates at a fixed frequency. In a laptop environment where thermal limits fluctuate, the AMD part's boost behavior may provide more consistent performance under varying conditions.

For legacy DirectX 11 workloads, the GTX 580M's higher texture and pixel rates give it a clear edge. The recorded OpenCL benchmark is a proxy for this class of compute-heavy tasks, and the NVIDIA part wins decisively. For modern API adoption and efficiency-focused designs, the R7 M465 is the more forward-looking choice despite its lower raw scores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M scores 6389 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 9.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M465's score of 5841.

Q: How does the GTX 580M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 580M is exactly tied with the GeForce GTX 460 SE at 6389, trails the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell by 0.3%, and leads the Radeon Pro WX 4100 by 0.9% and the Radeon R7 M350 by 1%.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The GTX 580M has a 256 bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M465 has a 64 bit bus with 36.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the R7 M465 support any APIs that the GTX 580M does not?

A: Yes, the R7 M465 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 580M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no recorded Vulkan support.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: Both GPUs have exactly 384 shading units. However, the GTX 580M has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs, while the R7 M465 has only 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The R7 M465 has a transistor density of 12.4M per mm² on a 125 mm² die, while the GTX 580M has 5.9M per mm² on a 332 mm² die.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M | AMD Radeon R7 M465 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1024 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 36.00 GB/s |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.920 GPixel/s | 8.192 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 39.68 GTexel/s | 24.58 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 952.3 GFLOPS | 786.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | Not recorded | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2011-06-27 | 2016-05-14 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 400M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 600M | Polaris Mobile |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M. It leads in the only recorded benchmark by 9.4%, holds advantages in FP32 throughput (952.3 vs 786.4 GFLOPS), pixel rate (9.920 vs 8.192 GPixel/s), texture rate (39.68 vs 24.58 GTexel/s), and memory bandwidth (96.00 vs 36.00 GB/s). Its larger 256 bit bus and higher ROP and TMU counts give it structural advantages that the R7 M465 cannot overcome with a higher boost clock.

The AMD Radeon R7 M465 is not without merit. It is built on a more modern 28 nm process with over twice the transistor density, it supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), and it offers FP16 compute at 786.4 GFLOPS. For users who need those specific capabilities, particularly Vulkan support or half-precision arithmetic, the R7 M465 is the only option between the two. Its lower die size and newer fabrication also suggest better power efficiency, though the database records no TDP for the AMD part to confirm this.

For anyone choosing between these two for general compute, rendering, or gaming workloads, the GTX 580M is the stronger pick. Its benchmark victory is backed by consistent specification advantages across every major performance-related category. The R7 M465 should be selected only when its modern API support or FP16 capability is an explicit requirement, since it loses on raw performance across the board. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the GTX 580M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, the R7 M465 at the 33rd, a small but consistent gap that matches the 9.4% head-to-head result.