AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a narrow victory for the AMD part in the single available benchmark, but the underlying specifications reveal a stark contrast in design philosophy, power requirements, and target use cases. While both cards occupy the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, their paths to that performance level could not be more different, with the R5 M435 leveraging efficiency and modern feature support against the GTX 550 Ti's brute-force memory bandwidth and legacy rasterization strength.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the sole head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R5 M435 emerges victorious with a score of 5859 against the GTX 550 Ti's 5731. This represents a 2.2% delta in favor of the AMD part, a relatively slim margin that nonetheless confirms the newer architecture's ability to outperform its older competitor in a compute-centric workload. The R5 M435's win is even more notable when considering the massive differences in their memory subsystems and raw compute resources.

The GTX 550 Ti does not claim victory in any benchmark category within this comparison, with a head-to-head win count of zero against the R5 M435's single win. However, the raw specification sheet tells a more nuanced story. The GTX 550 Ti boasts a memory bandwidth of 98.50 GB/s, which is nearly triple the R5 M435's 36.00 GB/s figure, thanks to its wider 192-bit bus versus the AMD part's 64-bit interface. Similarly, the NVIDIA card's texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s outpaces the R5 M435's 20.60 GTexel/s, and its 24 ROPs triple the AMD card's 8, suggesting that in fill-rate-limited scenarios, the older card could potentially close the gap or even pull ahead.

The FP32 compute performance is nearly identical, with the GTX 550 Ti delivering 691.2 GFLOPS against the R5 M435's 659.2 GFLOPS, a difference of less than 5%. This near-parity in floating-point throughput, combined with the AMD card's superior benchmark score, indicates that the GCN 1.0 architecture extracts more practical performance from its compute units than the Fermi 2.0 design. The pixel rate also favors AMD slightly, with 8.240 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s, despite the NVIDIA card having three times the ROP count, proof of the efficiency of the newer design.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 wins in compute-oriented workloads, as evidenced by its Geekbench OpenCL score and its modern feature set. Its support for Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1) means it can handle contemporary API-level workloads that the GTX 550 Ti, limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacking Vulkan support entirely, simply cannot process efficiently. The R5 M435 also wins decisively on power efficiency, with no TDP listed in the data, indicating it is designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with minimal power draw, whereas the GTX 550 Ti consumes 116 W and requires a 300 W power supply recommendation along with a 6-pin power connector.

The GTX 550 Ti wins in memory bandwidth-intensive scenarios. Its 98.50 GB/s bandwidth and 192-bit bus provide a massive advantage for texture-heavy gaming at higher resolutions, where the R5 M435's 36.00 GB/s would become a severe bottleneck. The NVIDIA card also wins on texture throughput with 32 TMUs versus 20, and on raw ROP count with 24 versus 8, making it the superior choice for traditional rasterization workloads that rely on fill rate. The GTX 550 Ti's dual-slot form factor and 210 mm length also indicate a desktop-oriented design with dedicated cooling, whereas the R5 M435's IGP slot width suggests it is soldered onto a motherboard or laptop, trading performance for portability.

For users running legacy applications or games from the early 2010s, the GTX 550 Ti's architecture, while older, was specifically designed for that era's rendering techniques. The Fermi 2.0 design's high memory bandwidth and robust ROP count would likely yield better frame rates in such titles. Conversely, the R5 M435's modern GCN 1.0 architecture and driver optimizations for current APIs give it the edge in compute shaders, physics simulations, and OpenCL-accelerated applications like video editing and cryptocurrency mining, where its superior benchmark score directly translates to real-world performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different processes and architectures. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses the Jet chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 690 million transistors into a tiny 56 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The GTX 550 Ti, in contrast, uses the GF116 chip based on Fermi 2.0 architecture, also built by TSMC but on a much older 40 nm process. This results in 1,170 million transistors spread across a massive 238 mm² die, with a significantly lower transistor density of just 4.9M per mm².

The memory configurations diverge sharply. The R5 M435 features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, running at an effective 4.5 Gbps, yielding 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 550 Ti has half the capacity at 1024 MB, but uses a 192-bit bus with 4.1 Gbps effective speed, delivering 98.50 GB/s — nearly three times the bandwidth. This suggests the NVIDIA card was designed for high-resolution texture streaming, while the AMD card prioritizes capacity for compute workloads that require larger working sets.

Core configuration differences are equally pronounced. The R5 M435 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with a boost clock of 1030 MHz and base clock of 780 MHz. The GTX 550 Ti has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, but runs at a lower memory clock of 1026 MHz and lacks listed base or boost clocks for the core. The AMD card's higher shader count and modern GCN architecture enable better instruction-level parallelism, while the NVIDIA card's higher TMU and ROP counts favor traditional pixel-pushing workloads.

Feature support marks the clearest generational divide. The R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, making it compatible with modern software ecosystems. The GTX 550 Ti supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The R5 M435 also uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 550 Ti is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16, providing the AMD card with better bandwidth for CPU-GPU communication in compute tasks. The GTX 550 Ti's display outputs include 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the R5 M435's outputs are portable-device dependent, reflecting its mobile/IGP positioning.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859, which is 2.2% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti's 5731.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The GTX 550 Ti has a significant advantage with 98.50 GB/s bandwidth from its 192-bit bus, while the R5 M435 offers only 36.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. This is a 2.7x difference in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 550 Ti has a TDP of 116 W, requires a 300 W power supply, and needs a 1x 6-pin power connector. The R5 M435 has no listed TDP and is classified as an IGP, indicating minimal power draw without external connectors.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon R5 M435 supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.170. The GTX 550 Ti has no Vulkan support listed in its specifications.

Q: How do their transistor counts and die sizes differ?

A: The GTX 550 Ti uses 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, while the R5 M435 uses 690 million transistors on a much smaller 56 mm² die. The AMD card achieves a transistor density of 12.3M/mm² versus 4.9M/mm² for NVIDIA.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The R5 M435 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the 1024 MB found on the GTX 550 Ti. This larger capacity benefits compute workloads, though the NVIDIA card's higher bandwidth compensates in memory-intensive gaming.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear winner for compute-oriented users: the AMD Radeon R5 M435, with its 2.2% higher Geekbench OpenCL score and modern API support, is the superior choice for anyone running OpenCL-accelerated applications, Vulkan-based software, or workloads that benefit from larger memory capacity. Its 2 GB frame buffer and 320 shading units provide a solid foundation for general-purpose GPU computing, and its IGP form factor makes it ideal for compact or mobile systems where power consumption and physical space are at a premium.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti, despite losing the single benchmark comparison, remains the better option for users prioritizing raw memory bandwidth and traditional rasterization throughput. Its 98.50 GB/s bandwidth, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs give it a substantial edge in texture-heavy gaming at higher resolutions, where the R5 M435's narrow 64-bit bus would bottleneck performance. The dual-slot design and dedicated 6-pin power connector also indicate a card built for sustained desktop workloads, not power-constrained environments.

For legacy software compatibility, the GTX 550 Ti's Fermi architecture was designed for the DirectX 11 era and may offer better driver optimization for games from that period. However, its lack of Vulkan support and lower OpenCL score make it a poor choice for modern compute tasks. The R5 M435's GCN 1.0 architecture, while not state-of-the-art, provides a more future-proof feature set with Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1) support.

The data ultimately shows two GPUs at the same performance percentile but with opposite strengths. The R5 M435 wins on efficiency, modern features, and compute performance, while the GTX 550 Ti wins on bandwidth, fill rate, and raw memory throughput. Given the benchmark result and the trajectory of software toward compute-heavy workloads, the AMD Radeon R5 M435 is the recommended choice for general-purpose use. The GTX 550 Ti is only preferable for users with specific, bandwidth-bound legacy workloads or those who require its desktop form factor and display outputs.