AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs AMD Radeon RX 6400 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs AMD Radeon R5 M435: a comparison between a modern discrete desktop GPU built on RDNA 2.0 and a legacy mobile integrated-class part based on GCN 1.0. The data shows a decisive generational gap, with the RX 6400 outperforming the R5 M435 by a wide margin in the single shared benchmark, while also offering architectural features that the older chip lacks entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the clear winner in every measurable category where both products have data. Based on the head-to-head benchmark results, the RX 6400 wins the only shared test — Geekbench OpenCL — with a score of 32011 against the R5 M435’s 5859. This represents a 446.4% advantage, meaning the RX 6400 delivers more than five times the compute performance in that workload. The RX 6400 also holds wins across its broader benchmark suite, including Passmark G3D (7673), Passmark G2D (722), and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (176), though the R5 M435 has no comparable scores in those tests for direct comparison.

The R5 M435’s only “win” is in the context of its own product class: it is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 28 nm process node and a 56 mm² die size, making it suitable for compact, low-power portable devices. Its performance percentile of 33 places it just below the RX 6400’s 35th percentile among all GPUs, but the delta is small in percentile terms despite the massive raw score difference. The R5 M435’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (deltaPct 0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 730 (deltaPct -1.2%), and AMD Radeon HD 8730M (deltaPct -1.6%), indicating it sits in a performance tier far below the RX 6400’s competition, which includes the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M and AMD FirePro W4100.

For use-case split, the RX 6400 is suited for entry-level desktop gaming and general-purpose GPU compute, given its 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 4 GB GDDR6 memory, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate. The R5 M435, with 659.2 GFLOPS FP32 and 2 GB GDDR5, is only appropriate for basic display output and light 2D workloads in laptops, where its 8.240 GPixel/s pixel rate and 20.60 GTexel/s texture rate are sufficient for legacy applications but not modern 3D titles.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 6400 than the R5 M435 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 6400 scores 32011, while the R5 M435 scores 5859. This gives the RX 6400 a 446.4% higher score, meaning it is approximately 5.46 times faster in that benchmark.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M435 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 36.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the RX 6400 supports ray tracing, featuring 12 ray tracing cores. The R5 M435 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two chips?

A: The RX 6400 is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the R5 M435 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The RX 6400’s transistor density is 50.5M per mm² compared to 12.3M per mm² for the R5 M435.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 6400 has an average benchmark score of 6001 across all its tested workloads, while the R5 M435 has an average score of 5859 based on its single Geekbench OpenCL result.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 6400 achieves a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s, which is substantially higher than the R5 M435’s 8.240 GPixel/s. The RX 6400 also leads in texture rate, with 111.4 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are stark. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32011, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859. The deltaPct of 446.4% in favor of the RX 6400 is the largest margin observed in this comparison, dwarfing the differences seen among either product’s nearest rivals. For context, the RX 6400’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, has an average score of 6000 — a 0% delta — meaning the RX 6400 essentially matches that older high-end mobile GPU despite being a low-profile desktop card. Meanwhile, the R5 M435’s closest competitor, the AMD Radeon R7 M465, scores 5841 (0.3% delta), which is still 446% below the RX 6400’s OpenCL result.

Beyond the shared test, the RX 6400’s other benchmark scores illustrate its capability range. In Passmark G3D, it scores 7673, which is its strongest result and reflects solid DirectX 11 performance. Its Passmark G2D score of 722 indicates competent 2D acceleration. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 6400 scores 176, a low absolute number but a valid result for a budget GPU at that workload’s extreme settings. The R5 M435 has no corresponding scores in these tests, so no direct percentage comparisons can be made, but the architectural and specification gaps strongly suggest it would fall far behind in each.

The wins tally confirms the dominance: the RX 6400 wins 1 head-to-head benchmark, and the R5 M435 wins 0. This is a one-sided comparison, and the data offers no scenario where the R5 M435 outperforms the RX 6400 in a shared workload. The only nuance is that the R5 M435’s average score of 5859 is within 2.4% of the RX 6400’s average of 6001, but this is because the RX 6400’s average includes lower-scoring tests like Passmark DirectX 9 (93) and Passmark DirectX 12 (30), which drag its mean down. In compute-heavy OpenCL, the difference is overwhelming.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs), compared to the R5 M435’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 2.4x advantage in shading units and 4x advantage in ROPs translates directly to the RX 6400’s higher fill rates and compute throughput. Clock speeds also diverge sharply: the RX 6400 runs at a base of 1923 MHz and boosts to 2321 MHz, while the R5 M435 operates at 780 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. The RX 6400’s game clock is 2039 MHz, a feature the R5 M435 lacks entirely.

Memory configuration is another major differentiator. The RX 6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the R5 M435 has 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for just 36.00 GB/s. Both use a 64-bit bus, but the newer memory type and higher clock speed give the RX 6400 a 3.56x bandwidth advantage. Power and physical specifications also differ: the RX 6400 has a 53 W TDP, is single-slot, and requires no power connectors with a 250 W suggested PSU, while the R5 M435 has no listed TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), and its power connectors and PSU requirements are not specified. The RX 6400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface and offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the R5 M435 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and its display outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent.”

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The RX 6400 is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip, part of the Navi II (RX 6000) generation. It uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, integrates 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, and achieves a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². In contrast, the R5 M435 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip, from the Gem System (R5 M400) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process, contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, and has a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The RX 6400’s die is nearly twice as large but packs almost eight times more transistors, reflecting the massive density improvement from the 6 nm node.

Feature support further separates the two. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, and includes 12 ray tracing cores — a capability entirely absent from the R5 M435, which has no ray tracing cores listed. The R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The RX 6400 also supports FP16 compute at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the R5 M435 has no FP16 data listed. The RX 6400’s FP32 performance is 3.565 TFLOPS, versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M435 — a 5.4x difference that mirrors the OpenCL benchmark gap. Release dates also reflect the generational leap: the RX 6400 launched on 2022-01-18, while the R5 M435 debuted on 2016-05-14, nearly six years earlier. Both are end-of-life products, but the RX 6400’s successor is listed as Navi III, whereas the R5 M435’s successor is Polaris Mobile. The RX 6400 has a launch MSRP of 159 USD; the R5 M435 has no listed launch MSRP.