GeForce GT 335M vs 920M

Place in the ranking	915	1107
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.86	2.42
Architecture	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GK208B	GT215
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	13 March 2015 (9 years ago)	7 January 2010 (14 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 cores	384	72
Core clock speed	954 MHz	450 MHz
Number of transistors	915 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	30.53	10.80
Floating-point processing power	0.7327 TFLOPS	0.1555 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	233
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	32	24

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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options	-	+

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 type	DDR3	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	25.6 GB/s
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 Connectors	No outputs	Single Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boost	2.0	no data
Optimus	+	-
GameWorks	+	-
Power management	no data	8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	+

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 920M 1.86
+87.9%

GT 335M 0.99

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.

GeForce 920M 718
+88%

GT 335M 382

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.

GeForce 920M 5587
+79.9%

GT 335M 3106

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:

Full HD

−6.7%

16
+6.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +30.8%	12−14 −30.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +9.4%	30−35 −9.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +30.8%	12−14 −30.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	17 +70%	10−11 −70%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +9.4%	30−35 −9.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +30.8%	12−14 −30.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4 −150%	10−11 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +9.4%	30−35 −9.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

This is how GeForce 920M and GT 335M compete in popular games:

GT 335M is 7% faster in 1080p

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce 920M is 300% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 335M is 150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce 920M is ahead in 39 tests (91%)
GT 335M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (7%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.86	0.99
Recency	13 March 2015	7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	28 Watt

GeForce 920M has a 87.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 335M, on the other hand, has 17.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 920M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 335M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.