AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a decisive advantage for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010. The GT 1010 scores 6698 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859 points. This translates to a 14.3% higher score for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin for two mobile-oriented discrete GPUs. In the head-to-head comparison, the GT 1010 takes the sole win, leaving the R5 M435 with zero victories.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this gap. The GT 1010 sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R5 M435 sits at the 33rd percentile. The GT 1010's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M370, which scores 6764 points, a mere 1% higher. The R5 M435, meanwhile, is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841 points, only 0.3% lower) and slightly behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929 points, 1.2% higher). In other words, the GT 1010 competes in a slightly higher performance tier, and the 14.3% delta between the two cards is larger than any delta between either card and its immediate rivals.

Breaking down the score difference, the GT 1010's 6698 points versus the R5 M435's 5859 points means the NVIDIA card delivers roughly 839 additional points. That is not a marginal edge; it is a clear generational and architectural gap. The GT 1010 outperforms the R5 M435 by a wider margin than the R5 M435 trails its own closest rival, the Intel UHD Graphics 730. The data consistently points to the GT 1010 being the faster part in the only measured workload.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record shows only one test, so the win distribution is straightforward: the GT 1010 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test outright. The R5 M435 does not win any recorded benchmark. However, the data also provides context for where each card might be preferable beyond raw compute.

The GT 1010's advantage in OpenCL suggests it handles general-purpose compute workloads, such as those offloaded to the GPU, with greater efficiency. Its higher pixel rate (11.74 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s) and texture rate (23.49 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s) reinforce that it should excel in fill-rate-bound scenarios, like older games or simple 2D/3D rendering. The GT 1010 also has a higher FP32 throughput (751.6 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS), which aligns with its OpenCL lead.

The R5 M435, despite losing the benchmark, has a structural advantage in raw shader count. It packs 320 shading units versus the GT 1010's 256, and 20 texture mapping units versus 16. This means that in workloads that scale well with shader count and are not limited by clock speed or memory bandwidth, the R5 M435 could theoretically close the gap. Its lower clock speeds (780 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost versus 1228 MHz base, 1468 MHz boost) however, hold it back. The GT 1010 simply runs much faster, and that clock advantage more than compensates for the R5 M435's wider execution resources in the measured test.

For users prioritizing compute performance, the GT 1010 is the clear pick. For those who only care about the presence of a discrete GPU in a portable device, the R5 M435 remains functional but measurably slower. The database shows no scenario where the R5 M435 wins a recorded benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 uses the GP108 chip built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses the Jet chip built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process gap is significant: the GT 1010 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm². The R5 M435 packs only 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.3 million per mm². The GT 1010 has nearly twice the transistor density and over 2.6 times the total transistor count.

Clock speeds reflect the architectural and process differences. The GT 1010 runs at a base clock of 1228 MHz and boosts to 1468 MHz. The R5 M435 runs at a base clock of 780 MHz and boosts to 1030 MHz. The NVIDIA card operates at a substantially higher frequency, which directly contributes to its higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. Memory clocks also differ: the GT 1010 uses 1502 MHz memory with 6 Gbps effective speed, while the R5 M435 uses 1125 MHz memory with 4.5 Gbps effective speed. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus, but the GT 1010 achieves 48.06 GB/s bandwidth versus the R5 M435's 36.00 GB/s.

The R5 M435 does have more shading units (320 versus 256) and more texture mapping units (20 versus 16), but it falls behind in every measured throughput metric. Its pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s, its texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s, and its FP32 is 659.2 GFLOPS. The GT 1010 counters with 11.74 GPixel/s, 23.49 GTexel/s, and 751.6 GFLOPS. The R5 M435 also lacks the GT 1010's newer API support: the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The GT 1010 has a TDP of 30 W, is a single-slot card, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. It measures 147 mm (5.8 inches) in length. The R5 M435 has no recorded TDP, no dimensions, and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable device dependent display outputs. The GT 1010 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the R5 M435 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The GT 1010 offers 1x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 outputs, while the R5 M435's outputs depend on the host device.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 is the faster GPU. It wins the only recorded benchmark by 14.3%, sits at a higher percentile (38th versus 33rd), and delivers superior pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and memory bandwidth. The GT 1010's higher clock speeds and newer Pascal architecture, built on a more advanced 14 nm process, give it a decisive edge over the R5 M435's older GCN 1.0 architecture on 28 nm.

Users who need a discrete GPU for OpenCL compute or general graphics acceleration should choose the GT 1010. Its single-slot form factor, low 30 W TDP, and no power connector requirement make it easy to install in a desktop system. The R5 M435, with its IGP designation and portable device dependent outputs, appears aimed at laptops or small form factor systems where its wider shader count (320 units) might occasionally help in specific workloads. However, the recorded data shows no scenario where that wider shader count translates into a win.

For anyone comparing these two cards directly, the GT 1010 is the recommended pick based on every metric in the database. The R5 M435 is an older part with lower performance and no recorded advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 scores 6698, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859, giving the GT 1010 a 14.3% lead.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M435 win any benchmark in the database?

A: No, the database records zero wins for the R5 M435. The GT 1010 wins the only head-to-head test.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The GT 1010 has a bandwidth of 48.06 GB/s, while the R5 M435 has 36.00 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R5 M435 has 320 shading units, which is more than the GT 1010's 256. However, the GT 1010 still achieves higher FP32 throughput (751.6 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS).

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The GT 1010 is built on a 14 nm process by Samsung, while the R5 M435 is built on a 28 nm process by TSMC.

Q: What is the TDP of the GT 1010?

A: The GT 1010 has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The R5 M435 has no recorded TDP.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 | AMD Radeon R5 M435 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1228 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1468 MHz | 1030 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 36.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 320 |

| TMUs | 16 | 20 |

| ROPs | 8 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.74 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.49 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 751.6 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | Not recorded |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 147 mm (5.8 inches) | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2021-01-12 | 2016-05-14 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 6698 | 5859 |

| Percentile | 38 | 33 |