Radeon R5 (Carrizo) vs GeForce GT 435M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 435M and Radeon R5 (Carrizo), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 (Carrizo) outperforms GT 435M by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1004 | 911 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.76 | 3.65 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Carrizo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 4 June 2015 (9 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 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 2410 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 12-35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.40 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2496 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 16 | no 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 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| 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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API with Feature Level 12.1 | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/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.
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.
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 | 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 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| 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
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| 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 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| 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
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| 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
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 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| 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
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| 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 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| 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
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
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 435M and R5 (Carrizo) compete in popular games:
- R5 (Carrizo) is 26% faster in 900p
- R5 (Carrizo) is 25% 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 R5 (Carrizo) is 133% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Carrizo) is ahead in 33 tests (65%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (35%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.39 | 1.84 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 4 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 12 Watt |
R5 (Carrizo) has a 32.4% 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 R5 (Carrizo) 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.
