Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) vs GeForce GT 635M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 635M and Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 635M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.45

R7 (Bristol Ridge) outperforms GT 635M by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking994901
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.842.99
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)GCN 1.2 (2016)
GPU code nameGF116Bristol Ridge
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)1 June 2016 (8 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 coresUp to 144512
Core clock speedUp to 675 MHzno data
Boost clock speed753 MHz900 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt12-45 Watt
Texture fill rate16.20no data
Floating-point processing power0.3888 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs24no data

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data

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 typeDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus widthUp to 192bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHzno data
Memory bandwidthUp to 43.2 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 data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/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.

GT 635M 1.45
R7 (Bristol Ridge) 1.96
+35.2%

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 635M 557
R7 (Bristol Ridge) 754
+35.4%

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 635M 1110
R7 (Bristol Ridge) 1852
+66.8%

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.

GT 635M 4995
R7 (Bristol Ridge) 5568
+11.5%

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.

GT 635M 750
R7 (Bristol Ridge) 1013
+35.1%

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 HD24
+84.6%
13
−84.6%

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
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6.1%
35−40
+6.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−36.4%
15
+36.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6.1%
35−40
+6.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6.1%
35−40
+6.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 1−2
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
−20%
6−7
+20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

This is how GT 635M and R7 (Bristol Ridge) compete in popular games:

  • GT 635M is 85% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 (Bristol Ridge) is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 (Bristol Ridge) is ahead in 35 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 16 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.45 1.96
Recency 22 March 2012 1 June 2016
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 12 Watt

R7 (Bristol Ridge) has a 35.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 191.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 635M in performance tests.


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

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.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M
GeForce GT 635M
AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)
Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 464 votes

Rate GeForce GT 635M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 42 votes

Rate Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.