Radeon PRO W7900 vs GeForce GT 635M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 635M with Radeon PRO W7900, including specs and performance data.

GT 635M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.28

PRO W7900 outperforms 635M by a whopping 5091% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking106726
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data7.44
Power efficiency2.8317.45
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameGF116Navi 31
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date22 March 2012 (13 years ago)13 April 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$3,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 1446144
Core clock speedUp to 675 MHz1855 MHz
Boost clock speed753 MHz2495 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate16.20958.1
Floating-point processing power0.3888 TFLOPS61.32 TFLOPS
ROPs16192
TMUs24384
Ray Tracing Coresno data96
L0 Cacheno data3 MB
L1 Cache192 KB3 MB
L2 Cache256 KB6 MB
L3 Cacheno data96 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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data280 mm
Widthno data3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB48 GB
Memory bus widthUp to 192bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 43.2 GB/s864.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1
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 and SDK support

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

DirectX12 API12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
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.

GT 635M 1.28
PRO W7900 66.45
+5091%

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 539
Samples: 1639
PRO W7900 28046
+5103%
Samples: 76

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
−4900%
1200−1250
+4900%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Fortnite 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−4900%
400−450
+4900%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−4900%
100−105
+4900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−4900%
450−500
+4900%
Valorant 30−35
−5047%
1750−1800
+5047%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 36
−5039%
1850−1900
+5039%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Dota 2 16−18
−4900%
850−900
+4900%
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Fortnite 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−4900%
400−450
+4900%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−4900%
100−105
+4900%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3
−4900%
100−105
+4900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−4900%
450−500
+4900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−4900%
350−400
+4900%
Valorant 30−35
−5047%
1750−1800
+5047%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Dota 2 16−18
−4900%
850−900
+4900%
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−4900%
400−450
+4900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−4900%
450−500
+4900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−4900%
350−400
+4900%
Valorant 30−35
−5047%
1750−1800
+5047%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
−4900%
400−450
+4900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−4900%
650−700
+4900%
Valorant 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−4900%
100−105
+4900%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−4900%
700−750
+4900%
Valorant 7−8
−4900%
350−400
+4900%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−4900%
100−105
+4900%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−4900%
100−105
+4900%

This is how GT 635M and PRO W7900 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7900 is 4900% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.28 66.45
Recency 22 March 2012 13 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 48 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 295 Watt

GT 635M has 742.9% lower power consumption.

PRO W7900, on the other hand, has a 5091.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 635M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 635M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon PRO W7900 is a workstation one.

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
AMD Radeon PRO W7900
Radeon PRO W7900

Other comparisons

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.


3.5 505 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 87 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 635M or Radeon PRO W7900, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.