Radeon R5 M330 vs GeForce GT 435M

Place in the ranking	1008	969
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.77	5.96
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GF108	Exo
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	3 September 2010 (14 years ago)	5 May 2015 (9 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	96	320
Compute units	no data	5
Core clock speed	650 MHz	955 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1030 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	690 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	18 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.40	20.60
Floating-point processing power	0.2496 TFLOPS	0.6592 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	16	20

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	large	no data
Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	14.4 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

Supported technologies

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

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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API with Feature Level 12.1	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	5.1	5.0
OpenGL	4.5	4.4
OpenCL	1.1	Not Listed
Vulkan	N/A	+
Mantle	-	+
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.

GT 435M 1.39

R5 M330 1.54
+10.8%

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.

GT 435M 535

R5 M330 595
+11.2%

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.

GT 435M 799

R5 M330 1689
+111%

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:

900p	19 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Full HD	24 +167%	9 −167%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3%	30−35 +3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −18.2%	13 +18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3%	30−35 +3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3%	30−35 +3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−50%

3−4
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how GT 435M and R5 M330 compete in popular games:

R5 M330 is 11% faster in 900p
GT 435M is 167% faster in 1080p

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

in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 M330 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R5 M330 is ahead in 17 tests (35%)
there's a draw in 32 tests (65%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.39	1.54
Recency	3 September 2010	5 May 2015
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	18 Watt

R5 M330 has a 10.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 94.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R5 M330 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 435M in performance tests.

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