AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

GT 635M
1.45
+6.6%

GeForce GT 635M outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 7% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking942966
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.26no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameN13E-GE2Topaz Pro / Sun
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date6 December 2011 (12 years old)1 May 2014 (9 years old)
Current price$55 no data
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores144320
CUDA coresUp to 144no data
Compute unitsno data5
Core clock speedUp to 675 MHz940 MHz
Boost clock speed753 MHz940 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Wattno data
Texture fill rateUp to 16.2 billion/sec22.56
Floating-point performance253.4 gflops721.9 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 635M and Radeon R5 M255 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0PCIe 3.0 x8
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8

Memory

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus widthUp to 192bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 43.2 GB/s16 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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
Eyefinityno data+
HDMI+no data
HDCP+no data
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no data

Technologies

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

AppAccelerationno data+
Endurono data-
HD3Dno data+
PowerTuneno data+
DualGraphicsno data1
TrueAudiono data-
ZeroCoreno data+
Switchable graphicsno data1
3D Blu-Ray+no data
Optimus+no data

API support

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

DirectX12 APIDirectX® 11
Shader Model5.16.3
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.1Not Listed
VulkanN/Ano data
Mantleno data+
CUDA+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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
+6.6%
R5 M255 1.36

GeForce GT 635M outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 7% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GT 635M 561
+6.7%
R5 M255 526

GeForce GT 635M outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 7% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GT 635M 4995
R5 M255 5399
+8.1%

Radeon R5 M255 outperforms GeForce GT 635M by 8% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GT 635M 1110
R5 M255 1784
+60.7%

Radeon R5 M255 outperforms GeForce GT 635M by 61% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GT 635M 750
R5 M255 1081
+44.1%

Radeon R5 M255 outperforms GeForce GT 635M by 44% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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:

900p21−24
+0%
21
+0%
Full HD24
+84.6%
13
−84.6%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−50%
6
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+33.3%
3
−33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how GT 635M and R5 M255 compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

  • R5 M255 is 0% faster than GT 635M

1080p resolution:

  • GT 635M is 84.6% faster than R5 M255

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

  • in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 635M is 100% faster than the R5 M255.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the R5 M255 is 50% faster than the GT 635M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 635M is ahead in 5 tests (16%)
  • R5 M255 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
  • there's a draw in 26 tests (81%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 1.45 1.36
Recency 6 December 2011 1 May 2014
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm

We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 635M and Radeon R5 M255. The differences in performance seem too small.


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

User ratings

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 R5 M255
Radeon R5 M255

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 409 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 53 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R5 M255 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.