Radeon HD 8650M vs GeForce GT 435M
Aggregate performance score
Radeon HD 8650M outperforms GeForce GT 435M by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 971 | 868 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.20 | 0.13 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | N11P-GT | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (13 years ago) | 7 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $67 | $338 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GT 435M has 54% better value for money than HD 8650M.
Detailed specifications
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 | 96 | 384 |
| CUDA cores | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 900 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 7.8 billion/sec | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 249.6 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 435M and Radeon HD 8650M 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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no 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 type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 4500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API with Feature Level 12.1 | 11.1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 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:
| 900p | 19
−26.3%
| 24−27
+26.3%
|
| Full HD | 24
−25%
| 30−35
+25%
|
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 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| 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 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| 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 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| 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 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 1−2 |
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%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GT 435M and HD 8650M compete in popular games:
- HD 8650M is 26% faster in 900p
- HD 8650M is 25% 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 HD 8650M is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8650M is ahead in 38 tests (76%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.37 | 1.90 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 7 January 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
The Radeon HD 8650M 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
