GeForce GT 635M vs Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS

Place in the ranking	559	998
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	24.19	2.84
Architecture	no data	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	no data	GF116
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	no data	22 March 2012 (12 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	768	Up to 144
Core clock speed	no data	Up to 675 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	753 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	4 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	16.20
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.3888 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	16
TMUs	no data	24

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	no data	large
Bus support	no data	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	no data	PCIe 2.0 x16

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	LPDDR5x	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	Up to 192bit
Memory clock speed	8448 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	Up to 43.2 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 Connectors	no data	No outputs
HDMI	-	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	Up to 2048x1536

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.

DirectX	12_1	12 API
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.5
OpenCL	no data	1.1
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.

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS 6.71
+386%

GT 635M 1.38

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.

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS 4033
+263%

GT 635M 1110

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS 3717
+396%

GT 635M 750

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 HD

−19%

25
+19%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2

15
+114%

7−8

−114%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Counter-Strike 2	11 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +233%	9−10 −233%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Metro Exodus	18−20	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Valorant	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Counter-Strike 2	10 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Dota 2	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +182%	10−12 −182%
Fortnite	40−45 +600%	6−7 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +156%	9−10 −156%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Grand Theft Auto V	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Metro Exodus	18−20	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +280%	14−16 −280%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +214%	7−8 −214%
Valorant	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
World of Tanks	100−110 +203%	36 −203%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Counter-Strike 2	8 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +182%	10−12 −182%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +111%	9−10 −111%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +280%	14−16 −280%
Valorant	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
World of Tanks	50−55 +538%	8−9 −538%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Forza Horizon 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Valorant	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +12.5%	16−18 −12.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Fortnite	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5	0−1
Valorant	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

This is how Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS and GT 635M compete in popular games:

GT 635M is 19% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS is 1100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS is ahead in 33 tests (75%)
there's a draw in 11 tests (25%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.71	1.38
Chip lithography	4 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	35 Watt

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS has a 386.2% higher aggregate performance score, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 75% lower power consumption.

The Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-45 1.7 TFLOPS is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 635M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.