GeForce GT 435M vs GTX 675MX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 675MX and GeForce GT 435M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 675MX
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
7.04
+406%

GTX 675MX outperforms GT 435M by a whopping 406% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5501010
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.172.91
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK104GF108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 October 2012 (12 years ago)3 September 2010 (14 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 cores96096
CUDA cores96096
Core clock speed600 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate52.3210.40
Floating-point processing power1.256 TFLOPS0.2496 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs8016

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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth115.2 GB/s25.6 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 outputsNo outputs
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.

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 API with Feature Level 12.1
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.11.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/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.

GTX 675MX 7.04
+406%
GT 435M 1.39

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.

GTX 675MX 2716
+408%
GT 435M 535

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 675MX 18950
+390%
GT 435M 3870

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.

GTX 675MX 3979
+398%
GT 435M 799

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 675MX 10735
+434%
GT 435M 2012

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:

900p95−100
+400%
19
−400%
Full HD53
+121%
24
−121%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Battlefield 5 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1400%
3−4
−1400%
Hitman 3 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+173%
14−16
−173%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+60.6%
30−35
−60.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Battlefield 5 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1400%
3−4
−1400%
Hitman 3 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+173%
14−16
−173%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+90.9%
10−12
−90.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+60.6%
30−35
−60.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1400%
3−4
−1400%
Hitman 3 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+173%
14−16
−173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+90.9%
10−12
−90.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+60.6%
30−35
−60.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Hitman 3 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+529%
7−8
−529%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Hitman 3 3−4 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

This is how GTX 675MX and GT 435M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 675MX is 400% faster in 900p
  • GTX 675MX is 121% 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 GTX 675MX is 1400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 675MX surpassed GT 435M in all 49 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.04 1.39
Recency 1 October 2012 3 September 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 35 Watt

GTX 675MX has a 406.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 435M, on the other hand, has 185.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 675MX 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.

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 GTX 675MX
GeForce GTX 675MX
NVIDIA GeForce GT 435M
GeForce GT 435M

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.


4.2 40 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 675MX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 3 votes

Rate GeForce GT 435M 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.