AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930A Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 and NVIDIA GeForce 930A are both end-of-life mobile-class GPUs built on the same TSMC 28 nm node, and the recorded data puts them in the same performance tier. The database contains one direct head-to-head measurement, a Geekbench OpenCL run, and it favors the AMD part by just over ten percent. What separates these two chips is less about raw scores and more about how each one allocates its silicon: the R5 M435 pairs a smaller graphics core with fast GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce 930A spends more transistors on shading hardware and then throttles it with slow DDR3. Neither card is in production anymore, so this comparison matters mainly for anyone evaluating used or legacy hardware.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is a single head-to-head result in the database, but it is decisive enough to be useful. In geekbench_opencl, the Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859 against 5317 for the GeForce 930A, a 10.2 percent win for AMD. For a pair of GPUs this closely matched on paper, that is a meaningful gap in a compute-oriented test.

Context from the broader database reinforces the picture. The R5 M435 sits at the 33rd percentile against all recorded GPUs, while the GeForce 930A lands at the 31st percentile. Both are entry-level parts, but the AMD card consistently clears its rival's neighborhood.

The rival clustering tells a similar story. The R5 M435's nearest competitors include the Radeon R7 M465 (5841 average, a delta of just 0.3 percent), the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929, -1.2 percent), the Radeon HD 8730M (5955, -1.6 percent), and the Quadro K620M (5957, -1.6 percent). It trades blows with all of them within roughly two percent. The GeForce 930A clusters around the GeForce 840M (5322, -0.1 percent), the GTX 980M (5308, 0.2 percent), the GeForce 940M (5284, 0.6 percent), and the Radeon R7 M445 (5358, -0.8 percent). That is a lower-scoring neighborhood overall, which is consistent with the measured ten percent deficit.

On paper, though, the 930A looks like the stronger compute chip. Its FP32 throughput is rated at 722.7 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M435, and it holds more shading units (384 versus 320) and more texture units (24 versus 20). The OpenCL result flips that expectation, and the memory subsystem explains most of it.

The Verdict

Strictly on the measured data, the Radeon R5 M435 is the pick. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 10.2 percent, it holds a slightly higher percentile ranking (33 versus 31), and its memory subsystem is substantially better equipped: 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus delivering 36.00 GB/s, against 2 GB of DDR3 on the same bus width delivering 16.02 GB/s. That is more than double the memory bandwidth, and in an entry-level GPU the memory subsystem is usually the bottleneck long before the shader array saturates.

The 930A's counterargument is texture throughput and theoretical FP32, plus a formally newer Vulkan driver (1.4 versus 1.2.170) and a lower peak clock that translates into a slightly lower texture-rate edge in its favor, 22.58 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. But texture rate is the only theoretical metric where it leads, and the measured score says the advantage does not survive contact with real workloads. Pixel fill rate also goes to AMD, 8.240 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s.

Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, and both draw power through the slot with no external connectors. If the decision comes down to the database, AMD wins it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in benchmarks?

A: The Radeon R5 M435. It scored 5859 in geekbench_opencl versus 5317 for the GeForce 930A, a 10.2 percent advantage.

Q: How much better is the R5 M435's memory?

A: Considerably. Both use a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of memory, but the R5 M435's GDDR5 runs at 4.5 Gbps effective for 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 930A's DDR3 runs at 2 Gbps effective for 16.02 GB/s.

Q: Which chip has more shading hardware?

A: The GeForce 930A, with 384 shading units and 24 TMUs against 320 and 20 for the R5 M435. Its rated FP32 output of 722.7 GFLOPS also beats the R5 M435's 659.2 GFLOPS, even though it loses the measured benchmark.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The 930A supports feature level 11_0 in DirectX 12 versus 11_1 for the R5 M435, and it lists Vulkan 1.4 against 1.2.170.

Q: How do they compare to other GPUs in the database?

A: The R5 M435 ranks at the 33rd percentile of all recorded GPUs; the 930A sits at the 31st. Both are entry-level parts.

Q: Which GPU uses less power?

A: Only the GeForce 930A has a recorded TDP, at 33 W. The database lists no TDP for the R5 M435, so no direct comparison is possible.

Specification Differences

The two chips share a lot: 28 nm TSMC manufacturing, 2 GB frame buffers on a 64-bit bus, eight ROPs, PCIe 3.0 x8, integrated slot width with no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The differences are where the story lives.

• Memory type and bandwidth: GDDR5 at 36.00 GB/s (R5 M435) versus DDR3 at 16.02 GB/s (930A).
• Memory clock: 1125 MHz, 4.5 Gbps effective versus 1001 MHz, 2 Gbps effective.
• Core clocks: 780 MHz base / 1030 MHz boost for the R5 M435 versus 928 MHz base / 941 MHz boost for the 930A. The AMD part has far more boost headroom.
• Shading units: 320 versus 384, in NVIDIA's favor.
• TMUs: 20 versus 24, in NVIDIA's favor.
• Transistors and die size: 690 million on a 56 mm² die for AMD versus 1,020 million on a 77 mm² die for NVIDIA.
• Transistor density: 12.3M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm².
• Fill rates: Pixel rate goes to AMD (8.240 versus 7.528 GPixel/s); texture rate goes to NVIDIA (22.58 versus 20.60 GTexel/s).
• FP32 compute: 722.7 GFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 659.2 GFLOPS for AMD.
• TDP: 33 W recorded for the 930A, none recorded for the R5 M435.
• DirectX feature level: 11_1 for AMD versus 11_0 for NVIDIA.
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 for AMD versus 1.4 for NVIDIA.
• Release timing: the 930A shipped first, in March 2015, followed by the R5 M435 in May 2016.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from opposite design philosophies within the same process generation. The R5 M435 uses AMD's Jet chip on the GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Gem System (R5 M400) generation, and it succeeds the Solar System line with Polaris Mobile following it. GCN 1.0 is an older architecture at this point, predating the card's own release by several years of AMD's roadmap.

The GeForce 930A uses the GM108 chip on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, from the GeForce 900A generation, succeeding the GeForce 800A with no recorded successor. Maxwell was NVIDIA's efficiency-focused design of that era, and it shows in the numbers: the 930A fits more transistors (1,020 million versus 690 million) into a larger die (77 mm² versus 56 mm²) at slightly higher density (13.2M versus 12.3M per mm²).

The key architectural trade is clock behavior versus resource count. AMD's smaller GCN core clocks lower at base (780 MHz) but boosts aggressively to 1030 MHz, while NVIDIA's Maxwell core runs a higher base (928 MHz) with a nearly flat boost (941 MHz). NVIDIA spreads more shaders across that narrower clock range; AMD compensates with clock headroom and, critically, with a memory subsystem carrying more than twice the bandwidth. Neither part has RT cores or tensor cores, which rules out any hardware-accelerated ray tracing or AI feature set on either side.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R5 M435 wins on measured performance and memory bandwidth. Its 10.2 percent OpenCL victory, higher database percentile, and 36.00 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth make it the better choice for any workload the database actually measured, particularly compute-adjacent tasks like OpenCL, and for any game or application that leans on memory throughput. Its higher pixel fill rate (8.240 GPixel/s) also gives it the edge at higher resolutions, at least within the limited envelope these chips can handle. Its DirectX 12 support at feature level 11_1 is marginally newer than the 930A's 11_0 as well.

The GeForce 930A wins on texture throughput, theoretical compute, and driver support. Its 22.58 GTexel/s texture rate and 722.7 GFLOPS FP32 rating favor texture-heavy rendering scenarios, assuming the slow DDR3 memory does not starve those units first. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is meaningfully newer than AMD's 1.2.170, which could matter for software that requires a recent Vulkan runtime. It is also the only one of the pair with a recorded power figure, 33 W, useful for anyone doing power-budget math in a compact system.

The overall split is lopsided toward AMD. One benchmark, one winner: the R5 M435 by 10.2 percent. The 930A's advantages are almost entirely theoretical or driver-related, and the database contains no measurement where it comes out ahead. For a buyer choosing between legacy laptops or refurbished systems carrying one of these chips, the recorded data says to take the Radeon.