Radeon Graphics vs GeForce GT 735M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 735M with Radeon Graphics, including specs and performance data.

GT 735M
2013
2 GB DDR3, 33 Watt
1.68

Graphics outperforms GT 735M by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking936897
Place by popularitynot in top-10010
Power efficiency3.559.21
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK208Renoir
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 April 2013 (11 years ago)no data (2024 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 cores384448
Core clock speed575 MHzno data
Boost clock speed889 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors915 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate18.4042.00
Floating-point processing power0.4416 TFLOPS1.344 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs3228

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 supportPCI Express 3.0no 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 amount2 GBSystem Shared
Standard memory configurationDDR3no data
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

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
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160no data
HDMI+-
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.1no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
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 735M 1.68
Radeon Graphics 1.98
+17.9%

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 735M 650
Radeon Graphics 764
+17.5%

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:

900p17
−5.9%
18−21
+5.9%
Full HD20
−5%
21−24
+5%

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 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−17.6%
40−45
+17.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−17.6%
40−45
+17.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−17.6%
40−45
+17.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
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 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GT 735M and Graphics compete in popular games:

  • Graphics is 6% faster in 900p
  • Graphics is 5% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.68 1.98
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 15 Watt

Graphics has a 17.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 120% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 735M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 735M is a notebook card while Radeon Graphics is a desktop one.


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 735M
GeForce GT 735M
AMD Radeon Graphics
Radeon Graphics

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.


3.8 32 votes

Rate GeForce GT 735M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 6245 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 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.