GeForce GT 635M vs Radeon R9 M280X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M280X and GeForce GT 635M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M280X
2015
0 MB Not Listed
2.11
+45.5%

R9 M280X outperforms GT 635M by a considerable 46% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking868990
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data2.88
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameSaturnGF116
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 February 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 cores896Up to 144
Core clock speed1000 MHzUp to 675 MHz
Boost clock speedno data753 MHz
Number of transistors2,080 million1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data35 Watt
Texture fill rate61.6016.20
Floating-point processing power1.971 TFLOPS0.3888 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs5624

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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportNot ListedPCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 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 typeNot ListedDDR3
Maximum RAM amount0 MB2 GB
Memory bus widthNot ListedUp to 192bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/sUp 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno dataUp to 2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1112 API
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCLNot Listed1.1
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.

R9 M280X 2.11
+45.5%
GT 635M 1.45

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.

R9 M280X 813
+45.7%
GT 635M 558

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.

R9 M280X 4698
+323%
GT 635M 1110

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.

R9 M280X 9222
+84.6%
GT 635M 4995

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.

R9 M280X 3498
+366%
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 HD26
+8.3%
24
−8.3%
4K18
+50%
12−14
−50%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 13
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+20%
14−16
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30
+275%
8−9
−275%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+9.1%
30−35
−9.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+20%
14−16
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 39
+255%
10−12
−255%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+9.1%
30−35
−9.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+20%
14−16
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+9.1%
30−35
−9.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R9 M280X and GT 635M compete in popular games:

  • R9 M280X is 8% faster in 1080p
  • R9 M280X is 50% faster in 4K

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

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R9 M280X is 275% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 635M is 22% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 M280X is ahead in 41 test (84%)
  • GT 635M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • there's a draw in 7 tests (14%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.11 1.45
Recency 5 February 2015 22 March 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

R9 M280X has a 45.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 M280X 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.

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 R9 M280X
Radeon R9 M280X
NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M
GeForce GT 635M

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.


2.7 3 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M280X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 463 votes

Rate GeForce GT 635M 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.