ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT vs GeForce GT 635M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 635M with Radeon HD 2900 XT, including specs and performance data.

GT 635M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.45

ATI HD 2900 XT outperforms GT 635M 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 ranking992929
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.05
Power efficiency2.890.55
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGF116R600
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)14 May 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 coresUp to 144320
Core clock speedUp to 675 MHz743 MHz
Boost clock speed753 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,170 million720 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt215 Watt
Texture fill rate16.2011.89
Floating-point processing power0.3888 TFLOPS0.4755 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs2416

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus widthUp to 192bit512 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz828 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 43.2 GB/s106.0 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputs2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API10.0 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/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.

GT 635M 1.45
ATI HD 2900 XT 1.71
+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 635M 558
ATI HD 2900 XT 659
+18.1%

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 HD24
−12.5%
27−30
+12.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data14.78

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
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
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
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
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
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
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
+0%
2−3
+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 0−1 0−1
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 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GT 635M and ATI HD 2900 XT compete in popular games:

  • ATI HD 2900 XT is 13% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.45 1.71
Recency 22 March 2012 14 May 2007
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 215 Watt

GT 635M has an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 514.3% lower power consumption.

ATI HD 2900 XT, on the other hand, has a 17.9% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon HD 2900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 635M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 635M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 2900 XT 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 635M
GeForce GT 635M
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT
Radeon HD 2900 XT

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.


3.5 463 votes

Rate GeForce GT 635M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 64 votes

Rate Radeon HD 2900 XT 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.