GeForce GT 435M vs Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)

Place in the ranking	903	1011
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.00	2.73
Architecture	GCN 1.2 (2016)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Bristol Ridge	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 June 2016 (8 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 cores	512	96
Core clock speed	no data	650 MHz
Boost clock speed	900 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2410 Million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12-45 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	10.40
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.2496 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	4
TMUs	no data	16

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	medium sized	large
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	no data	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	2 GB
Memory bus width	64/128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	25.6 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 Connectors

no data

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (FL 12_0)	12 API with Feature Level 12.1
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.

R7 (Bristol Ridge) 1.96
+41%

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.

R7 (Bristol Ridge) 754
+40.9%

GT 435M 535

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.

R7 (Bristol Ridge) 1852
+132%

GT 435M 799

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.

R7 (Bristol Ridge) 5568
+43.9%

GT 435M 3870

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:

900p	24−27 +26.3%	19 −26.3%
Full HD	13 −84.6%	24 +84.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Elden Ring	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Dota 2	9 +800%	1−2 −800%
Elden Ring	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +18.2%	10−12 −18.2%
Fortnite	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	5 +150%	2−3 −150%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	26 +73.3%	14−16 −73.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
World of Tanks	35−40 +31%	27−30 −31%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Dota 2	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +18.2%	10−12 −18.2%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
World of Tanks	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Valorant	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Fortnite	0−1	0−1
Valorant	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

This is how R7 (Bristol Ridge) and GT 435M compete in popular games:

R7 (Bristol Ridge) is 26% faster in 900p
GT 435M is 85% faster in 1080p

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 (Bristol Ridge) is 1300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R7 (Bristol Ridge) is ahead in 35 tests (80%)
there's a draw in 9 tests (20%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.96	1.39
Recency	1 June 2016	3 September 2010
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	35 Watt

R7 (Bristol Ridge) has a 41% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 191.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) 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.