Radeon Pro 5300M vs GeForce GT 435M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 435M with Radeon Pro 5300M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5300M outperforms 435M by a whopping 987% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1076 | 408 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.82 | 12.60 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 13 November 2019 (6 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 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.40 | 100.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2496 TFLOPS | 3.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 2 MB |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API with Feature Level 12.1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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
−953%
| 200−210
+953%
|
| Full HD | 24
−983%
| 260−270
+983%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 0−1 | 27−30 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6000%
|
60−65
+6000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2200%
|
45−50
+2200%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−638%
|
55−60
+638%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−2100%
|
40−45
+2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−478%
|
50−55
+478%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−250%
|
110−120
+250%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6000%
|
60−65
+6000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
−540%
|
190−200
+540%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−435%
|
90−95
+435%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2200%
|
45−50
+2200%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−638%
|
55−60
+638%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−2100%
|
40−45
+2100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−478%
|
50−55
+478%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−250%
|
110−120
+250%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6000%
|
60−65
+6000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−435%
|
90−95
+435%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2200%
|
45−50
+2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−638%
|
55−60
+638%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−478%
|
50−55
+478%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−250%
|
110−120
+250%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−1213%
|
100−110
+1213%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−923%
|
130−140
+923%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−3550%
|
140−150
+3550%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3000%
|
30−35
+3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1033%
|
30−35
+1033%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1450%
|
30−35
+1450%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−85.7%
|
24−27
+85.7%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−1183%
|
75−80
+1183%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−5000%
|
50−55
+5000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how GT 435M and Pro 5300M compete in popular games:
- Pro 5300M is 953% faster in 900p
- Pro 5300M is 983% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Pro 5300M is 6000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 5300M performs better in 43 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.28 | 13.91 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 13 November 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 85 Watt |
GT 435M has 143% lower power consumption.
Pro 5300M, on the other hand, has a 987% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 5300M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 435M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 435M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 5300M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
