AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 and NVIDIA GeForce 940M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the mid-2010s, aimed at thin-and-light laptops and entry-level notebooks. The recorded data shows two very different design philosophies: the R5 M435 is built on a compact integrated-style package with GDDR5 memory, while the 940M uses a larger discrete chip with DDR3 memory. Benchmark results indicate that the 940M holds a measurable edge in overall compute performance, but the R5 M435 counters with a much higher memory bandwidth per byte of bus width. This analysis walks through the head-to-head numbers, architectural splits, and specification differences to clarify which GPU fits which workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that test, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6018 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859 points. That gives the 940M a 2.6% advantage over the R5 M435. While a 2.6% gap is small in absolute terms, it is consistent across the single available measurement, making it a reliable indicator of the 940M’s slight compute superiority in OpenCL workloads.

Looking at broader context, the R5 M435’s average benchmark score is 5859, which places it in the 33rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M465 at 5841 (0.3% slower), the Intel UHD Graphics 730 at 5929 (1.2% faster), and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955 (1.6% faster). The R5 M435 sits within a tight cluster of similar-performance parts, meaning its 5859 score is right in the middle of the pack for entry-level mobile GPUs.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M has a more complex benchmark profile. It has two recorded scores: 6018 in OpenCL and 4549 in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 5284, which is lower than its OpenCL score because the Vulkan result drags the average down. The 940M sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M at 5308 (0.4% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce 930A at 5317 (0.6% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5322 (0.7% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (0.9% slower). The 940M’s average score of 5284 is actually lower than its OpenCL score, but it still edges out the R5 M435’s 5859 in the OpenCL head-to-head.

The most striking thing about the head-to-head data is that the 940M wins the only direct comparison, but the margin is narrow. A 2.6% difference is within the range of run-to-run variance for many OpenCL workloads, so the practical performance difference in real applications may be negligible. However, the database records a clear winner, and that winner is the 940M.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 does not win any recorded benchmark against the 940M. The head-to-head table shows 0 wins for the R5 M435 and 1 win for the 940M. That means in the only test where both GPUs have comparable data, the 940M comes out ahead.

However, the R5 M435 has a notable advantage in memory bandwidth efficiency. The R5 M435 uses GDDR5 memory at 4.5 Gbps effective, delivering 36.00 GB/s across a 64-bit bus. The 940M uses DDR3 memory at 1800 Mbps effective, delivering only 14.40 GB/s across the same 64-bit bus. That means the R5 M435 has 2.5 times the memory bandwidth of the 940M, even though both use a 64-bit interface. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as texture-heavy scenes or certain compute kernels, the R5 M435 could potentially close the gap with the 940M, despite the latter’s higher raw compute score.

The 940M wins in raw compute throughput. It has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units, compared to the R5 M435’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The 940M’s pixel rate is 17.57 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M435, and its texture rate is 35.14 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 1,124.4 GFLOPS for the 940M versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M435. These numbers explain why the 940M wins the OpenCL benchmark: it has roughly 70% more shading units and 71% more FP32 throughput.

For gaming, the 940M’s higher pixel and texture rates should translate to better frame rates in most titles, especially at lower resolutions where pixel fill rate matters. For compute tasks like OpenCL, the 940M’s larger shader array gives it an edge. The R5 M435’s higher memory bandwidth could help in specific scenarios, but the 940M’s overall compute advantage is more general.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural families. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is built on GCN 1.0, the first generation of AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture. The chip is codenamed Jet, and it belongs to the Gem System generation, specifically the R5 M400 series. The 940M, by contrast, uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, with the chip codenamed GM107, and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation.

The process node is identical: both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor counts differ significantly. The R5 M435 has 690 million transistors on a die size of 56 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The 940M has 1,870 million transistors on a die size of 148 mm², giving a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The 940M’s die is 2.6 times larger and holds 2.7 times more transistors, but the density is nearly identical, reflecting the same 28 nm manufacturing process.

The memory architecture is a major divergence. The R5 M435 uses GDDR5 memory with an effective data rate of 4.5 Gbps, while the 940M uses DDR3 at 1.8 Gbps effective. Both have the same 64-bit bus width and 2 GB capacity, but the R5 M435’s GDDR5 delivers 36.00 GB/s versus the 940M’s 14.40 GB/s. This is a 150% bandwidth advantage for the AMD part, which is unusual given that the 940M is the higher-performing GPU overall.

API support also differs. The R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vulkan version difference is notable: the 940M supports Vulkan 1.4, a much newer specification, while the R5 M435 is capped at 1.2.170. The DirectX version also differs: the R5 M435 supports 12 (11_1), which includes some features from DirectX 11.1, while the 940M supports 12 (11_0), which is the baseline DirectX 12 feature set.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The R5 M435 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz. The 940M has a base clock of 1020 MHz and a boost clock of 1098 MHz. The 940M runs at a higher clock speed at both base and boost, contributing to its higher compute throughput.

The shading units are 320 for the R5 M435 versus 512 for the 940M. The texture mapping units are 20 versus 32. The raster output units are 8 versus 16. Every compute-related metric favors the 940M: pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s versus 17.57 GPixel/s, texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s versus 35.14 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 659.2 GFLOPS versus 1,124.4 GFLOPS.

The memory subsystem is where the R5 M435 fights back. Both have 2 GB and a 64-bit bus, but the memory type differs: GDDR5 for the R5 M435 versus DDR3 for the 940M. The effective memory clock is 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for the R5 M435 versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the 940M. The resulting bandwidth is 36.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a 2.5x advantage for the AMD part.

The power and form factor also differ. The R5 M435 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no TDP figure recorded, while the 940M is an MXM Module with a TDP of 75 W. The 940M has no power connectors listed, meaning it draws power from the MXM slot. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R5 M435 versus MXM-B (3.0) for the 940M. The 940M’s MXM form factor suggests it is designed for upgradeable laptop graphics, while the R5 M435’s IGP designation implies it is soldered to the motherboard.

Release dates differ by about 14 months: the R5 M435 launched on May 14, 2016, while the 940M launched on March 12, 2015. The predecessor and successor lines also differ: the R5 M435’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile, while the 940M’s predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6018 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859. The 940M wins by 2.6%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M435 win any benchmark against the 940M?

A: No. The head-to-head record shows 0 wins for the R5 M435 and 1 win for the 940M in the only recorded comparison.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two GPUs?

A: The R5 M435 has 36.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth using GDDR5 at 4.5 Gbps effective, while the 940M has 14.40 GB/s using DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective. Both use a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the compute throughput difference?

A: The 940M delivers 1,124.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the R5 M435 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS. The 940M also has 512 shading units versus 320 for the R5 M435.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The 940M has a recorded TDP of 75 W. The R5 M435 has no TDP listed in the database and is classified as an IGP.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the stronger GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, has more than twice the pixel rate, 71% more FP32 throughput, and nearly double the texture rate. Its larger die (148 mm² versus 56 mm²) and higher transistor count (1,870 million versus 690 million) give it a clear compute advantage that shows up in the OpenCL score. Anyone prioritizing raw performance in compute or gaming workloads should choose the 940M.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 has one significant advantage: memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory at 36.00 GB/s is 2.5 times faster than the 940M’s DDR3 at 14.40 GB/s. For memory-intensive tasks, this could offset some of the compute gap, but no benchmark in the database confirms this. The R5 M435 also has a newer Vulkan support version (1.2.170 versus 1.4, actually the 940M is newer), but that is a minor point.

The 940M’s higher TDP (75 W) versus the R5 M435’s unlisted IGP power draw suggests the 940M requires more power, which could affect battery life in laptops. However, the database does not include battery or efficiency measurements, so that remains a qualitative consideration. The 940M is the choice for performance, while the R5 M435 is the choice for bandwidth efficiency, with the caveat that no recorded benchmark shows the R5 M435 winning.