GeForce GT 635M vs Radeon R5 M320

Place in the ranking	1072	996
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	no data	2.86
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Jet	GF116
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	5 May 2015 (9 years ago)	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	320	Up to 144
Compute units	5	no data
Core clock speed	780 MHz	Up to 675 MHz
Boost clock speed	855 MHz	753 MHz
Number of transistors	690 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	unknown	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.10	16.20
Floating-point processing power	0.5472 TFLOPS	0.3888 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	20	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	PCIe 3.0	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	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	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	Up to 192bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	16 GB/s	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 outputs	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.

HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-
3D Blu-Ray	-	+
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 API
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.5
OpenCL	Not Listed	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
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 M320 1.18

GT 635M 1.45
+22.9%

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 M320 454

GT 635M 556
+22.5%

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 M320 1652
+48.8%

GT 635M 1110

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

18−21

−38.9%

25
+38.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
Fortnite	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −15.4%	14−16 +15.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	24−27 −38.5%	36 +38.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −15.4%	14−16 +15.4%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	0−1	1−2
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Valorant	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%