Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
AMD Radeon R5 (Carrizo) vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 335M
Aggregated performance score
GT 335M
2010
1024 MB DDR3, GDDR3
0.99
R5 (Carrizo)
2015
1.83
+84.8%
Radeon R5 (Carrizo) outperforms GeForce GT 335M by 85% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1066 | 874 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.02 | no data |
| Architecture | GT200 (2010) | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | N11P-GS1 | Carrizo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (14 years old) | 4 June 2015 (8 years old) |
| Current price | $310 | no data |
Value for money
no data
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 72 | 256 |
| CUDA cores | 72 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 2410 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 12-35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.80 | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 155.52 gflops | no data |
| Gigaflops | 233 | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 335M and Radeon R5 (Carrizo) compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Video outputs and ports
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 | Single Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI | no data |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | no data |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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 | 16
−68.8%
| 27−30
+68.8%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GT 335M and R5 (Carrizo) compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- R5 (Carrizo) is 68.8% faster than GT 335M
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R5 (Carrizo) is 200% faster than the GT 335M.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Carrizo) is ahead in 21 test (78%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (22%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 0.99 | 1.83 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 4 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 12 Watt |
The Radeon R5 (Carrizo) 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.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
