Radeon HD 8330 vs R5 M255

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 M255 with Radeon HD 8330, including specs and performance data.

R5 M255
2014
4 GB DDR3
1.38
+103%

R5 M255 outperforms HD 8330 by a whopping 103% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking10131183
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data3.18
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameTopazKalindi
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date12 October 2014 (10 years ago)13 August 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores384128
Compute units5no data
Core clock speed925 MHz497 MHz
Boost clock speed940 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,550 million1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data15 Watt
Texture fill rate22.563.976
Floating-point processing power0.7219 TFLOPS0.1272 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs248

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x8no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8IGP
Widthno dataIGP

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1000 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth16 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1112 (12_0)
Shader Model6.36.3
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed2.0
Vulkan-1.2.131
Mantle+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

R5 M255 1.38
+103%
HD 8330 0.68

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R5 M255 542
+103%
HD 8330 267

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R5 M255 1784
+237%
HD 8330 530

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R5 M255 5399
+198%
HD 8330 1813

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R5 M255 1081
+208%
HD 8330 351

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R5 M255 6053
+127%
HD 8330 2672

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p21
+110%
10−12
−110%
Full HD13
+18.2%
11
−18.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 9
+350%
2−3
−350%
Counter-Strike 2 5
−40%
7−8
+40%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+200%
2−3
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Fortnite 14
+133%
6−7
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+17.2%
27−30
−17.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
+57.9%
18−20
−57.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 27
+125%
12−14
−125%
Fortnite 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 8
+167%
3−4
−167%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+17.2%
27−30
−17.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 21
+75%
12−14
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Valorant 30−35
+17.2%
27−30
−17.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Valorant 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R5 M255 and HD 8330 compete in popular games:

  • R5 M255 is 110% faster in 900p
  • R5 M255 is 18% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the R5 M255 is 350% faster.
  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the HD 8330 is 40% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R5 M255 is ahead in 28 tests (78%)
  • HD 8330 is ahead in 2 tests (6%)
  • there's a draw in 6 tests (17%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.38 0.68
Recency 12 October 2014 13 August 2013

R5 M255 has a 102.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

The Radeon R5 M255 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8330 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 M255 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 8330 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R5 M255
Radeon R5 M255
AMD Radeon HD 8330
Radeon HD 8330

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.4 66 votes

Rate Radeon R5 M255 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 200 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 M255 or Radeon HD 8330, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.