GeForce GT 735M vs Radeon R5 M255

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 M255 and GeForce GT 735M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R5 M255
2014
4 GB DDR3
1.41

GT 735M outperforms R5 M255 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1005938
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data3.51
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameTopazGK208
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date12 October 2014 (10 years ago)1 April 2013 (11 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 cores384384
Compute units5no data
Core clock speed925 MHz575 MHz
Boost clock speed940 MHz889 MHz
Number of transistors1,550 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data33 Watt
Texture fill rate22.5618.40
Floating-point processing power0.7219 TFLOPS0.4416 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2432

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x8PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x8

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataDDR3
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth16 GB/s14.4 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
Eyefinity+-
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-
Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1112 API
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCLNot Listed1.1
Vulkan-1.1.126
Mantle+-
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.

R5 M255 1.41
GT 735M 1.69
+19.9%

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.

R5 M255 542
GT 735M 650
+19.9%

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.

R5 M255 1784
+4.1%
GT 735M 1713

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.

R5 M255 5399
GT 735M 5688
+5.3%

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.

R5 M255 1081
+5.6%
GT 735M 1024

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R5 M255 6053
GT 735M 6757
+11.6%

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
+23.5%
17
−23.5%
Full HD13
−53.8%
20
+53.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6
+50%
4−5
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Hitman 3 5
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9
+200%
3−4
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−3%
30−35
+3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+75%
12−14
−75%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−3%
30−35
+3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5
−220%
16−18
+220%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
−300%
12−14
+300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−3%
30−35
+3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
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 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
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
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%

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
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

This is how R5 M255 and GT 735M compete in popular games:

  • R5 M255 is 24% faster in 900p
  • GT 735M is 54% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R5 M255 is 200% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 735M is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R5 M255 is ahead in 4 tests (8%)
  • GT 735M is ahead in 24 tests (49%)
  • there's a draw in 21 test (43%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.41 1.69
Recency 12 October 2014 1 April 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB

R5 M255 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GT 735M, on the other hand, has a 19.9% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GT 735M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M255 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.


AMD Radeon R5 M255
Radeon R5 M255
NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M
GeForce GT 735M

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.


2.4 65 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 33 votes

Rate GeForce GT 735M 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.