AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon R5 M435 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 760M and AMD Radeon R5 M435 represent two very different eras of mobile graphics. The 760M is a modern integrated GPU built on a 4 nm process, while the R5 M435 is an older discrete part from the GCN 1.0 generation on a 28 nm node. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the 760M delivering 245.7% higher scores in the only shared test, but the R5 M435 retains its own niche as a legacy solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available between the two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unequivocal. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 20,255 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5,859 points. This translates to a 245.7% advantage for the 760M, meaning it is roughly three and a half times faster in this compute-oriented workload. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in raw throughput.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the 760M’s average benchmark score of 6,019 places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (average score 6,001, deltaPct 0.3%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (average score 6,000, deltaPct 0.3%). The 760M essentially trades blows with these older discrete cards, sitting 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (average score 6,049) and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (average score 5,996). This indicates that despite being an IGP, the 760M performs in the same league as dedicated mobile GPUs from a few years prior.

The R5 M435, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 5,859, which places it in the 33rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are clustered tightly around it: the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (average score 5,841, deltaPct 0.3%) is essentially tied, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (average score 5,929, deltaPct -1.2%), AMD Radeon HD 8730M (average score 5,955, deltaPct -1.6%), and NVIDIA Quadro K620M (average score 5,957, deltaPct -1.6%) are all slightly ahead. The R5 M435’s performance is within a narrow band of these older entry-level parts, showing that it was a modest performer even in its own generation.

Beyond the OpenCL test, the 760M shows strength across other workloads. In Passmark G3D, it scores 5,310, which is its second-highest individual benchmark result. Its Passmark G2D score of 890 suggests competent 2D acceleration. In compute-specific tests, it scores 2,840 in Passmark GPU Compute. The 760M also achieves 30,336 in Geekbench Vulkan, a substantial number that highlights its modern API support. Even in legacy DirectX tests, it posts scores of 65 (DX9), 52 (DX11), 25 (DX12), and 19 (DX10), showing it can handle older titles without issue.

The R5 M435’s data sheet is much sparser, with only the Geekbench OpenCL score of 5,859 available. There are no Passmark or Vulkan results for this part, which limits direct comparison in those areas. However, its raw specifications tell a story of its own: it has a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s, figures that are dwarfed by the 760M’s 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s respectively. The FP32 compute rating of 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M435 is a fraction of the 760M’s 5.323 TFLOPS, further illustrating the massive compute gap.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior product by a wide margin. Its 245.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is supported by its much higher average benchmark score of 6,019 versus 5,859 for the R5 M435. For anyone considering a system with these GPUs, the 760M is the clear choice for any task involving 3D graphics, compute workloads, or modern gaming. Its performance rivals discrete GPUs like the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, which is remarkable for an integrated part.

The R5 M435, on the other hand, is an end-of-life product from 2016. Its performance is comparable to the Intel UHD Graphics 730 or the AMD Radeon R7 M465, meaning it is suitable only for very light, legacy tasks. There is no scenario in the data where the R5 M435 comes out ahead. It has a smaller memory footprint (2 GB versus system-shared for the 760M) and a narrower 64-bit bus, but these advantages do not translate into any performance wins.

For a user prioritizing performance, the 760M is the only rational choice. For a user with a legacy system that requires the R5 M435, it will function, but it offers no headroom for demanding applications. The 760M’s active production status and modern architecture mean it will receive better driver support and be more future-proof. The R5 M435’s status as end-of-life suggests it is a dead end. In short, the 760M is a modern, capable part, while the R5 M435 is a relic of a bygone era.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M is significantly faster, scoring 20,255 points compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M435’s 5,859 points, a difference of 245.7%.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 760M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 760M’s average benchmark score of 6,019 is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000), and 0.4% higher than the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049) by 0.5%.

Q: What is the performance percentile of the AMD Radeon R5 M435?

A: The R5 M435 sits in the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5,859. It is 1.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 and 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8730M and NVIDIA Quadro K620M.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 760M support modern APIs?

A: Yes, the 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It also includes 8 ray tracing cores. The R5 M435 supports only DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M is listed as "Active" and was released in 2024. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is listed as "End-of-life" and was released in 2016.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS. The 760M is roughly eight times more powerful in this metric.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The AMD Radeon 760M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, packing 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. This leads to a massive difference in transistor density: 142.6M per mm² for the 760M versus 12.3M per mm² for the R5 M435.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The 760M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2,599 MHz. The R5 M435 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a much lower boost clock of 1,030 MHz. Memory configurations are completely different: the 760M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, while the R5 M435 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

The compute units scale accordingly. The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs), along with 8 ray tracing cores. The R5 M435 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no ray tracing support. The bus interface also differs, with the 760M using PCIe 4.0 x8 and the R5 M435 using PCIe 3.0 x8.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these are two completely different designs. The AMD Radeon 760M uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. It is a modern integrated GPU that shares memory with the system. The R5 M435 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Gem System (R5 M400) generation, and is a discrete mobile GPU with its own dedicated VRAM.

The process node difference is stark: 4 nm for the 760M versus 28 nm for the R5 M435. This explains the massive transistor count disparity (25,390 million vs 690 million) and the corresponding performance gap. The 760M’s RDNA 3.0 architecture brings features like ray tracing cores, which are absent on the R5 M435. The 760M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M435 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The R5 M435’s GCN 1.0 architecture is a much older design that does not support modern features like ray tracing or variable rate shading. Its FP16 compute is not specified, whereas the 760M supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 5.323 TFLOPS. The 760M’s display outputs are motherboard-dependent, typical for an IGP, while the R5 M435’s outputs are portable-device dependent, typical for a laptop part. The 760M has no power connectors and a 15 W TDP, while the R5 M435’s TDP is not specified. Ultimately, the 760M is a high-end integrated solution, while the R5 M435 is a legacy discrete part from a previous hardware generation.