AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs AMD Radeon R7 M350 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins the only head-to-head test recorded in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL workload, by a decisive 19.3% margin. That single victory gives it a clean sweep in direct comparisons.

But the R5 M435 should not be dismissed outright. Its advantage lies in a different domain: memory bandwidth. The R5 M435 pairs a 64-bit bus with GDDR5 memory running at 4.5 Gbps effective, producing 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M350 uses DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective on the same 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s. That is a 125% bandwidth advantage for the R5 M435, a figure that matters in texture-heavy or frame-buffer-bound scenarios even if the synthetic compute scores favor the R7 M350.

In terms of raw compute throughput, the R7 M350 leads with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. It sustains a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1015 MHz. The R5 M435 counters with 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, but its base clock drops to 780 MHz while the boost reaches 1030 MHz. The R7 M350's higher unit counts and higher base frequency translate to 779.5 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M435. Texture rate tells a similar story: 24.36 GTexel/s for the R7 M350 against 20.60 GTexel/s for the R5 M435.

Pixel rate is nearly identical, with the R7 M350 at 8.120 GPixel/s and the R5 M435 at 8.240 GPixel/s. That small difference actually favors the R5 M435, suggesting the two GPUs are equally matched in fill-rate-limited work despite the R7 M350's broader compute lead.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The R7 M350 uses the Meso chip built on GCN 3.0, while the R5 M435 uses the Jet chip on the original GCN 1.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both are end-of-life products with the same predecessor and successor lineage: Solar System before, Polaris Mobile after.

The transistor counts reveal a substantial difference in die complexity. The R7 M350 integrates 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the R5 M435 fits 690 million transistors onto 56 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.4M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm², which indicates the same manufacturing maturity but very different chip budgets. The R7 M350 is essentially a larger, more capable GPU in the same process generation.

Memory architecture differs in type and capacity. The R7 M350 offers 4 GB of DDR3, while the R5 M435 offers 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 64-bit bus, but the memory type produces the bandwidth gap noted earlier. The R7 M350 has double the capacity, which can help in larger workloads, but the R5 M435 has more than double the bandwidth, which can help in bursty or streaming workloads.

API support shows a subtle generational gap. The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and the same OpenGL and Vulkan versions. The DirectX feature level difference means the R7 M350 exposes a slightly more modern feature set for titles that rely on DX12 tier 12_0 features.

The R5 M435 is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with display outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent", while the R7 M350 does not carry that slot width classification in the database. Both connect via PCIe 3.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between these two GPUs, the Geekbench OpenCL test. The R7 M350 scores 6991 against the R5 M435's 5859, a 19.3% advantage for the R7 M350.

That margin is significant. It places the R7 M350 in a performance tier that includes the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330 average, 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282, 0.7% delta), and even the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270, 0.9% delta). The R7 M350's average benchmark score of 6327 sits just 0.05% below the Pro WX 4100 and 0.7% above the Quadro K620. In other words, the R7 M350 punches well above its mobile, low-power positioning in synthetic compute.

The R5 M435 tells a different story. Its only recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL at 5859, sits 0.3% above the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841) but trails the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929) by 1.2%, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955) by 1.6%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957) by 1.6%. The R5 M435 is clustered with older and integrated parts, whereas the R7 M350 is clustered with professional workstation GPUs.

The 19.3% delta in the head-to-head is the clearest signal. It shows the R7 M350's larger die, higher shader count, and higher clocks translate directly into compute performance. The R5 M435's GDDR5 bandwidth does not compensate in this particular workload.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs according to the database:

• Chip: Meso (R7 M350) vs Jet (R5 M435)
• Architecture: GCN 3.0 vs GCN 1.0
• Generation: Gem System (R7 M300) vs Gem System (R5 M400)
• Transistors: 1,550 million vs 690 million
• Die Size: 125 mm² vs 56 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.4M / mm² vs 12.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz vs 780 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1015 MHz vs 1030 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) vs 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bandwidth: 16.00 GB/s vs 36.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 384 vs 320
• TMUs: 24 vs 20
• Pixel Rate: 8.120 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 24.36 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 779.5 GFLOPS vs 659.2 GFLOPS
• FP16: 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) vs null (not supported or not recorded)
• Slot Width: null vs IGP
• Display Outputs: null vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: 12 (12_0) vs 12 (11_1)
• Release Date: 2015-05-04 vs 2016-05-14

Fields that match include process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), ROPs (8), OpenGL (4.6), Vulkan (1.2.170), production status (end-of-life), predecessor (Solar System), successor (Polaris Mobile), and the absence of TDP, power connectors, and suggested PSU data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in raw compute?

A: The R7 M350. It scores 6991 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5859 for the R5 M435, a 19.3% lead. Its FP32 output is 779.5 GFLOPS compared to 659.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Why does the R5 M435 have a higher memory bandwidth despite being slower in compute?

A: The R5 M435 uses GDDR5 memory at 4.5 Gbps effective on a 64-bit bus, yielding 36.00 GB/s. The R7 M350 uses DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective on the same bus width, producing only 16.00 GB/s. The memory type difference explains the gap.

Q: How does the R7 M350 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: Its average benchmark score of 6327 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330, 0% delta) and sits 0.7% above the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270) by 0.9%.

Q: Is the R5 M435 competitive with similar mobile GPUs?

A: The data shows it sits in a tight cluster. It is 0.3% above the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841) but 1.2% below the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929), 1.6% below the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955), and 1.6% below the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957).

Q: What architectural generations are these GPUs based on?

A: The R7 M350 uses the Meso chip on GCN 3.0, while the R5 M435 uses the Jet chip on GCN 1.0. Both are 28 nm TSMC parts, but the R7 M350 has a much larger die at 125 mm² versus 56 mm².

Q: Which GPU has more memory and which has faster memory?

A: The R7 M350 has more memory at 4 GB of DDR3. The R5 M435 has faster memory at 2 GB of GDDR5, delivering 36.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 16.00 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in roles. The R7 M350 is the stronger compute performer. Its 19.3% lead in the only head-to-head benchmark, combined with a 779.5 GFLOPS FP32 rating and a 24.36 GTexel/s texture rate, makes it the choice for workloads that stress shader throughput or general compute. Its average benchmark score of 6327 places it alongside the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and above the NVIDIA Quadro K620, which is remarkable for a mobile part from 2015.

The R5 M435, however, has a specific niche. Its 36.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth is more than double the R7 M350's 16.00 GB/s. That matters for applications that are memory-bound, such as high-resolution texture streaming or certain image-processing tasks. Its pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s also edges out the R7 M350's 8.120 GPixel/s, giving it a slight fill-rate advantage. But its compute scores are firmly in the mid-range: 5859 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it just above the R7 M465 and just below the UHD Graphics 730 and HD 8730M.

The architecture difference explains much of this. The R7 M350 is a GCN 3.0 design with 1,550 million transistors and 384 shading units, while the R5 M435 is a GCN 1.0 design with 690 million transistors and 320 shading units. The R7 M350's higher base clock of 1000 MHz (versus 780 MHz) further compounds the compute gap, though the R5 M435's boost clock of 1030 MHz actually exceeds the R7 M350's 1015 MHz.

For users choosing between these two in a portable device, the decision hinges on workload. The R7 M350 wins on compute, shader throughput, and memory capacity. The R5 M435 wins on memory bandwidth and has a slightly higher pixel rate. Since the database records only one benchmark, the 19.3% OpenCL gap is the strongest single data point, and it favors the R7 M350 decisively.

The R7 M350 is the better all-around GPU for compute-heavy tasks, and its 4 GB capacity provides more headroom for larger datasets. The R5 M435 is the better choice for bandwidth-sensitive workloads, and its 36.00 GB/s throughput is a genuine advantage. But given the compute lead, the R7 M350 is the safer recommendation for general use, while the R5 M435 deserves consideration only when memory bandwidth is the limiting factor.